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

Section 302 Certification

I, Stephen V. Coffey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Diedrich Coffee, 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(s) 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(s) 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 the 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.



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: April 23, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Stephen V. Coffey  
|                      |  |  |  | Stephen V. Coffey      
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### REYNOLDS METALS CO. v. Malcolm B. DEVERS.

No. 38628.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 220 So.2d 664.
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1276 

AN ACT 

To increase oversight of the Revolving Fund of the Office 

of Personnel Management. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 1276 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Security Clearance 

3 Oversight and Reform Enhancement Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. OVERSIGHT OF THE REVOLVING FUND OF THE OF5 FICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT. 

6 Section 1304(e) of title 5, United States Code, is 

7 amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (1), in the first sentence, by 

9 inserting before the period the following: ‘‘, and for 

10 the cost of audits, investigations, and oversight ac11 tivities relating to the fund and the functions fi12 nanced by the fund, conducted by the Inspector Gen13 eral of the Office’’; and 

14 (2) in paragraph (5), by adding at the end the 

15 following: ‘‘Each budget submitted under this para16 graph shall include an estimate from the Inspector 

17 General of the Office of the amount required to pay 

18 the reasonable expenses to adequately audit, inves19 tigate, and perform other oversight activities relating 

20 to the fund and the functions financed by the fund 

21 for the applicable fiscal year, which shall not exceed 

22 0.33 percent of the total budgetary authority re-
3 

†S 1276 ES

1 quested in the budget estimates submitted to Con2 gress by the Office for that fiscal year.’’. 

Passed the Senate October 10, 2013. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1276 

AN ACT 

To increase oversight of the Revolving Fund of the 

Office of Personnel Management.
#### Com. of Pa. ex rel. *v.*Sentz, Appellant.

Argued May 1, 1934.

Before Tbexler, P. J., Keller, Cunningham, Baldeige, Stadteeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*Vernon Hassard,*for appellant.

*O. 8. Richardson,*for appellee.

July 13, 1934:

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

On June 18, 1923, the county court of Allegheny County made an order directing John A. Sentz, this appellant, to pay $7 a week to the desertion probation officer of the court for the support of Della Sentz, his *76wife, until November 1, 1923, and from then on, $10 a week. The order was not appealed from.

On October 23, 1933, after a rule to attach the defendant for failing to make the payments under said order had been discharged and a second rule for the same object had been entered, defendant presented his petition asking that the order be vacated, on which the present rule was granted. The petition to vacate the order is not printed as a part of the record, but, overlooking this, we gather from the argument in the brief that the reason advanced for the relief prayed for was that defendant had in October, 1933, obtained a divorce from his wife, Della Sentz, on the ground of her “having committed adultery with one Louis Stewart on June 8, 1927 and divers other times before and since that date.”

A reference to the judge’s notes at the time the order was entered on June 18, 1923, showed that the woman was thought to be pregnant and that the increase in the order after November 1, 1923, was made with that thought in mind. It also appeared that the child, Bussell Albert Sentz, was born in December, 1923, and his birth was noted in the judge’s notes.

No formal order for the support of the child was made, notwithstanding the thought and intention of the judge, until September 6, 1933, when the court modified the order of June 18, 1923, by directing that defendant pay $5 per week for the support of his minor child [Bussell Albert Sentz], and pay $5 cash on arrearages by September 9th. “Balance of arrearages to stand.”

We do not know just what was intended by the last sentence of the modified order, “Balance of arrearages to stand.”

After hearing, the rule to revoke the order of June 18, 1923 was discharged, and the modification of September 6,1933 was reaffirmed. The question of arrear*77ages due on September 6, 1933 was held in abeyance, but arrearages since that date were ordered to be paid.

We think it is clear that the original order was intended to cover the support of the child when born, and that it was within the power of the court to modify the order by directing that the sum to be paid be reduced to five dollars per week, to be applied for the support and maintenance of the child, Bussell Albert Sentz. This is what we interpret the order to mean. And as so interpreted we affirm it, at the costs of appellant.

It is further ordered that no attachment shall issue on the arrearages which had accrued prior to September 6, 1933 without leave of this court.
<PAGE>
 
                                                            EXHIBIT 23.1



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
  (Form S-8 Nos. 33-37913, 33-41664, 33-41665, 33-41783, 33-65754, 33-71010, 33-
  71008, 33-86368, 33-86370, 33-86372, 333-03429, 333-03427) pertaining to the
  Micrografx, Inc. Incentive and Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan, the Micrografx,
  Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Micrografx, Inc. Restricted Stock
  Purchase Plan and the Micrografx, Inc. Directors Stock Purchase Plan of our
  report dated August 5, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial
  statements and schedule of Micrografx, Inc. included in the Annual Report
  (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 1997.
  

                                 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


  Dallas, Texas
  September 15, 1997
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 Mango Capital, Inc. and Subsidiary (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Dennis M. Goett, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Sean M. Gavin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by 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.





By:
/s/Dennis M. GoettChief Executive OfficerMay 16, 2011By:
/s/Sean M. GavinChief Financial OfficerMay 16, 2011





This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
#### FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION v. John M. CANNON.

No. 38672.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 221 So.2d 240.
Health and Nutrition 107

U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012

Table 148. Medicaid—Selected Characteristics of Persons Covered: 2009

[In thousands, except percent (47,469 represents 47,469,000). Represents number of persons as of March of following year who 

were enrolled at any time in year shown. Excludes unrelated individuals under age 15. Persons did not have to receive medical 

care paid for by Medicaid in order to be counted. For explanation of poverty level, see text, Section 13. See headnote, Table 567]

Poverty status Total 1

White 

alone 2

Black 

alone 3

Asian 

alone 4

Hispanic 5Under

18 years 

18–44 

years

45–64 

years 

65 years 

and over

 Persons covered, total . .  47,469 32,599 10,408 1,949 12,906 25,042 12,235 6,543 3,64

Below poverty level. . . . . . . .  19,919 12,633 5,404 666 5,905 11,265

Above poverty level. . . . . . . .  27,550 19,966 5,004 1,283 7,001 13,777 6

 Percent of population

 covered . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15.6 13.5 27.0 13.9 26.4 33.6 11

Below poverty level. . . . . . . .  45.7 42.3 54.3 38.1 47.8 72.

Above poverty level. . . . . . . .  10.6 9.4 17.5 10.5 19.2 

1

 Includes other races, not shown separately. 2 White alone refers to people who reported White and did not report any other 

race category. 3 Black alone refers to people who reported Black and did not report any other race category. 4 Asian alone refers to 

people who reported Asian and did not report any other race category. 5 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009, Current Population 

Reports, P60-238, 2010; Table HI02, “Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by Selected Characteristics for 

People in the Poverty Universe: 2009” and Table HI03, “Health Insurance Coverage Status and Type of Coverage by Selected 

Characteristics for Poor People in the Poverty Universe: 2009.” See also <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032010

/health/toc.htm>.
TELEPHONE CONVERSATION RECORD

Date of Call: April 7, 2015

Call Initiated By: David Ogulei

Call To: Krag Petterson, Cooper Environmental Services

Phone No. (503) 670-8335

Mr. Petterson explained to me that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has 

recently leased one multi-metals CEMS and one ambient monitor from Cooper Environmental Services 

(Cooper). He stated that both units have been installed and have begun operating. However, Mr. 

Petterson believes that the multi-metals CEMS is still undergoing relative accuracy test audits. The 

instruments will be used to monitor metal emissions from two battery recyclers. Mr. Petterson referred 

me to Mr. Dipankar Sarkar, SCAQMD, for more information on the project.

Mr. Petterson also stated that Chevron has completed its purchase of one multi-metals CEMS from 

Cooper. Cooper has already delivered the instrument to Chevron. It is Mr. Petterson’s understanding 

that Chevron intends to install the unit at their Nigeria facility; however, he cannot verify whether or not 

the unit has been installed.
#### In re Petition for Adoption of Minor Children by William King PECK.

No. 69-486.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 5, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

Section 302 Certification

I, Stephen V. Coffey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Diedrich Coffee, 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(s) 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(s) 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 the 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.



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                        |  | 
|Dated: January 28, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Stephen V. Coffey  
|                        |  |  |  | Stephen V. Coffey      
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### Carolyn TADLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. H. HODGES & COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 6538.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

April 5, 1978.

*1269Wm. Henry Sanders, Jena, Edward A. Kaplan, Eugene P. Cicardo, Alexandria, for plaintiff-appellant.

Gist, Methvin & Trimble, H. B. Gist, Jr., Alexandria, for defendant-appellee.

Before GUIDRY, FORET and CUTRER, JJ.

GUIDRY, Judge.

MOTION TO DISMISS

We issued, ex proprio motu, a rule to show cause why plaintiff-appellant’s appeal in this matter should not be dismissed due to her failure to timely file an appeal bond. Plaintiff-appellant has answered the rule.

We dismiss the appeal.

The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendant on October 27, 1977, and notice of judgment was mailed by the clerk of court on the same day.

A summary judgment is a final, appealable judgment. LSA-C.C.P. art. 968. Since a new trial was not applied for, appellant had until January 9,1978, within which to perfect her devolutive appeal. LSA-C. C.P. art. 2087. Plaintiff-appellant timely obtained an order of appeal on December 13, 1977. However, since the appeal bond was not filed until January 17, 1978, the appeal is untimely and must therefore be dismissed. Act 176 of 1977, eliminating the requirement of security for a devolutive appeal, applies only to appeals in which the order of appeal is granted on or after January 1, 1978. See *Robbins*v. *Estate of Camille Bordelon,*356 So.2d 113 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1978).

For the reasons assigned, plaintiff-appellant’s appeal is dismissed at her cost.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### Alan F. SALOMON, Appellant, v. Marvin BACON, Appellee.

No. 72-858.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 5, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2022463EN.01004602.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/46

---

Order of the General Court of 20 October 2022 — Callaway v Commission

(Case T-653/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Common agricultural policy - Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species - Plant varieties - Producer of the hemp variety Finola - Areas cultivated in Poland - Hemp varieties eligible for financial support under the common agricultural policy - Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content - Authorisation given to Poland to prohibit the marketing of the Finola variety in its territory - Not directly concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 463/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: James C. Callaway (Kuopio, Finland) (represented by: P. Hoffman, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Becker and F. Castilla Contreras, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, James C. Callaway, seeks the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/1214 of 22 July 2021 authorising Poland to prohibit the marketing on its territory of the hemp variety Finola pursuant to Council Directive 2002/53/EC (OJ 2021 L 265, p. 1) (‘the contested decision’). He also raises, under Article 277 TFEU, pleas of illegality in respect of Article 32(6) of Regulation No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes falling within the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608), as well as Article 9(5) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation No 1307/2013 and amending Annex X to that Regulation (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Republic of Poland. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Republic of Poland.

| 3. | James C. Callaway shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

James C. Callaway shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The Council, the Parliament and the Republic of Poland shall bear their own costs in relation to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Council, the Parliament and the Republic of Poland shall bear their own costs in relation to the applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.

---
In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: January 28,2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2013-0045 

WORLDWIDE AIRCRAFT 

SERVICES, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2009S0150216 

Respondent 

NOTICE OF HEARING LOCATION 

On June 6, 2013, an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures was filed, which 

noted that the specific location of the Hearing would be provided by separate Notice to the 

parties. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Hearing in this case, set to begin on March 5, 2014, at 

9:00a.m., will be held at the following location: 

George E. Edgecomb Courthouse 

Criminal Courthouse Annex 

Courtroom# 53A 

800 E. Twiggs St. 

Tampa, Florida 33602 

The courthouse opens to the public at 8:00a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). The 

Hearing begins at 9:00a.m. EST. Please allow time to pass through security. Individuals 

entering courthouse facilities through public access doors are subject to search, including search 

by use of electronic or other specialized equipment. 

Attachment: Service List 
' i 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Mr. William P. Vines 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

F~: 404-305-5223 

ONE COPY 

Mr. Michael A. Honeycutt, President 

Worldwide Aircraft Services, Inc., Respondent 

c/o JET I.C.U. 

2561 Rescue Way 

Brooksville, FL 34604 

TEL: 352-796-2540 

F ~: 352-796-2549 

mike@jeticu.com 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

F ~: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0045 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.