alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT31.1**

**Certification**

I, Tommy A. Moore, Jr.,certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofFirst Investors Financial Services Group, Inc.

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the Company andbased on such evaluation:

a)  Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; and

b)  Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report(based on such evaluation); and

c)     Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting;

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

a)  Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport 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: Sept 13, 2007
|        | By: /s/ TOMMY A.  MOORE, JR. |   |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   | Tommy A. Moore,  Jr.         |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer     |

 

----
#### Bobby Lee DANIELS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-31.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 24, 1971.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and Edwin T. Mulock, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and P. A. Pacyna, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Nelson v. O’Neil, 1971, 402 U.S. 622, 91 S.Ct. 1723, 29 L.Ed.2d 222.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and MANN, JJ., concur.
#### Donald James ROBERTS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida and Duval County, Respondents.

No. S-147.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 1, 1973.

Donald James Roberts, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner has filed in this court a petition for writ of habeas corpus by which he alleges that he is incarcerated in a federal prison in Texas but his opportunity for parole has been thwarted because of detainers filed against him by the State of Florida.

By his petition he alleges that the detain-ers which form the subject of his concern stem from an affidavit charging him with having unlawfully uttered a worthless *559check presently pending against him m the Justice of the Peace Court, District 5, of Duval County, Florida. He designates this action as Case No. 71-3042, which has been referred to the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County for prosecution. He alleges that his demand for a speedy trial has been ignored and the time for affording him such trial has long since passed. He further asserts that all efforts made by him to have the charges dismissed have brought no response and have proved to be of no avail.

By his petition he further alleges that an information has been filed against him in the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County charging him with the offense of auto theft. He similarly alleges that he made a demand for a speedy trial, that such demand has been ignored, and that the time for affording him such trial has long since passed. He contends that all efforts to have this case dismissed have likewise proved fruitless.

On the basis of the foregoing allegations, he seeks a writ discharging him from constructive custody and quashing the infor-mations presently pending against him.

In response to a rule nisi, the State of Florida has filed its return supported by documentary exhibits from which it affirmatively appears that the worthless check charge in Case No. 71-3042 filed against him was nolle pressed by the State on July 12, 1971, and is no longer pending. There has been filed in this cause a certificate by the Clerk of the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County establishing that there are no criminal charges presently pending against petitioner in that court. It further appears that the charge of auto theft lodged against him was not filed nor is it pending in the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County but in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County. Evidence has been furnished which demonstrates that the state attorney of that circuit has been directed to take the steps necessary to secure petitioner’s extradition from Texas and to place him on trial in Pinellas County with all reasonable dispatch.

Under the circumstances the writ prayed for is denied and the petition dismissed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ„ concur.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1042 CA 11-02551**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

GROVE PLACE TOWNHOMES, LLC, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V ORDER

WOODLARK PROPERTIES, II, LP, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

FIX SPINDELMAN BROVITZ & GOLDMAN, P.C., FAIRPORT (REUBEN ORTENBERG OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP, BUFFALO (THOMAS R. CHIAVETTA OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Matthew A. Rosenbaum, J.), entered March 1, 2011 in a breach of contract action. The order, among other things, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.

Entered: September 28, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### Donald H. McGREGOR, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of his minor son, Robert T. McGregor v. UNITED FILM CORP. et al.

No. 61261.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 20, 1978.

In re: Guaranty Broadcasting and the Travelers Insurance Co., applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 351 So.2d 1224.

Writ denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. David L. BAGLEY.

No. 61528.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1978.

In re: David L. Bagley, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of DeSoto.

*1383Writ denied. The ruling of the trial judge is correct. In the event of conviction, relator cannot be subjected to imprisonment based upon previous uncounselled convictions. *Argersinger v. Hamlin,*407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972). Hence, this prosecution does not expose relator to the threat of imprisonment without the assistance of counsel.

DIXON, J., would grant the writ.
Exhibit
31.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, George
J. Coates, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of
Coates International, Ltd., certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Coates International, Ltd. (the
"Company");





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 Company 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-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and I
have:





(a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the Company, 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 Company'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 our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;





5. I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Company's auditors and to
the audit committee of the Company's board of directors:





(a)
all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the Company'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 Company'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.




August
      13, 2008
              By:
              /s/ George
      J. CoatesGeorge
      J. CoatesPresident,
      Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer
#### Carlos MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-865.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 19, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1619

RICHARD HAKA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MECKLENBURG COUNTY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

District Judge. (3:12-cv-00100-FDW-DSC)

Submitted: June 21, 2012 Decided: June 25, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Haka, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Haka appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Haka v. 

Mecklenburg Cnty., No. 3:12-cv-00100-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. May 1, 

2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
1

Medina, Dayana

From: Reitter, Annabeth <Annabeth.Reitter@domtar.com>

Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:18 PM

To: Medina, Dayana

Subject: Voice Mail Message

Attachments: removed.txt

Hi Dayana,

I am out with business travel this week but I did received your voice mail message regarding the scrubbing reagent for

use in the add‐on scrubber described in the Lundberg document.  We are looking into this and will provide you with the

information.

We are currently working on our response to Question 9 pertaining to boiler temperature variability and the effects the

variability has on the technical feasibility of SNCR.  We encountered a few delays as we conduct further research for our

response.  As a result, we are targeting Friday to provide you with a response to Question 9 and the responses to your

additional questions involving the emission factor for TDF (developed from a fuel sample analysis as noted on page 4 of

our 8/29 response), diagram of the internals for the existing scrubber on PB #2 and scrubbing reagent for the add‐on

scrubber described in the Lundberg document.

You also asked for cost information for achieving additional SO2 reductions with the existing scrubber on PB #2 and

when we may be able to provide this additional information.  I learned the Ashdown Mill will be beginning a very

extensive maintenance outage addressing the pulping, papermaking and ancillary processes.  The outage will begin this

upcoming weekend and lasting for about 2 weeks, with the mill scheduled to begin equipment start‐up on September 29

or 30.  During this time, our internal engineering resources at the mill will be focused on completing the maintenance

outage work and will have limited availability.  We may need to engage outside engineering resources to assist with

reviewing scrubber performance capabilities and develop the requested cost information.  With the timing of the

maintenance outage and the possibly need to retain outside engineering resources, we most likely will be able to

provide a response on the requested cost information at the end of the month.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Thanks,

Annabeth

Annabeth Reitter

Corporate Manager, Environmental Regulation 

T 715-886-7785 | C 715-459-9257 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

Domtar

301 Point Basse Avenue

Nekoosa, WI 54457

Domtar reminds you to print responsibly. Learn more about paper as a sustainable choice at paperbecause.com 

This email is for the exclusive use of the addressee and is subject to Domtar Confidentiality Notice.
#### In the Matter of Lambert STIENHANS, Revocation of License, General Lines Insurance Agent.

No. I-55.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Jan. 24, 1967.

John M. Robertson, Orlando, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Thomas E. Boyle, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Walter E. Rountree, Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, and Charles Christopher Anderson, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner, appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Florida Statutes 626.611(7), F.S.A., the evidence appears sufficient to sustain the Insurance Commissioner’s revocation of license of the appellant. The order appealed is hereby affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### C. A. FRENCH, Appellant, v. Frederick L. YOUMANS and Corene H. Youmans, Appellees.

No. 72-169.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 14, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 19, 1973.

Frank J. Aloia of Adderly, Aloia & Dudley, Cape Coral, for appellant.

Guy H. Amason, Jr., of Roberts, Watson, Taylor & McNeil, Fort Myers, for ap-pellees.

MANN, Chief Judge.

Billy’s Creek isn’t where it used tó be, and hasn’t been for about forty years. There is no authority of record for Lee County to employ its first dragline and a couple of WPA crews to straighten it, nor is there any evidence that making a canal out of a creek is an improvement over the design of the Creator. But there it is, flowing freely and creating an occasional legal problem.

In 1970 French took quitclaim deeds to the land between Billy’s Creek Canal, a/k/a Billy’s Creek, and the bed of the original, and this ejectment action followed an unpleasant encounter with Youmans, who thought he owned to whichever Billy’s Creek the water was in. None of French’s predecessors in title seems to have disagreed.

The trial judge’s finding of fact that the new, straighter Billy’s Creek has been acquiesced in as the boundary of lots fronting on Billy’s Creek is amply supported by the record, legally sustained by the Supreme Court’s decision in Palm Orange Groves, Inc. v. Yelvington, Fla.1949, 41 So.2d 883, and is hereby

Affirmed.

LILES, J., and PIERCE, J., (Ret.), concur.
#### TROPICAL COACH LINES, INC., Petitioner, v. Jess YARBOROUGH et al., Respondents.

No. 41259.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 26, 1972.

James L. Armstrong, III, of Smathers & Thompson, Miami, for petitioner.

Murray H. Dubbin, and Phillip Schiff, of Dubbin, Schiff, Berkman & Dubbin, Miami, for American Sightseeing Tours, Inc.

Prentice P. Pruitt and Donald Alexander, Tallahassee, for Florida Public Service Commission.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been submitted to the Court on Petition for Writ of Certiorari, and the transcript of record and briefs and arguments of counsel having been considered, it is the decision of this Court that certiorari be granted.

Prior to announcing a judgment, however, we find it necessary to remand this cause temporarily to the respondent Commission so that its Members may state, and support in an appropriate manner, the reasoning behind their respective minority and majority positions.

We request a return of the file by the Commission within 45 days.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
No. 11165.

#### Grosse *v.*Oppenheimer et al.

Decided October 5, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Mr. John C.*Rogers, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Benton S. Oppenheimer; Mr. William M. Fridman*and *Mr. H. L. Kronenberger,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Spear and Sitauck, JJ., concur.
Esiorcireemat tes peer mieten eye ere at rte acne ee ef re rt hers pe eer le mena

. C 5 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE—RBUREAU OF THE CENSUS =
Beate MACON Incorporated place g AL, Ward of city 2G. Unincorporated place sito eetenir Cis a oticcntmmenete &D.No. tf ____. mn Sh G2!
Township or other

County — LAE division of abba Cees une Lee Block Noe, f4-—L4 Fatt aie asian ase Soa POPULATION SCHEDULE

L3

<8 meemenmee ppierine tee tO

LOCATION | HOUSENOLD DATA wame RELATION a,

g
E
HY

PLACE OF BIRTE |£ RESIARNOE, APRIL 1, 1995 |

‘WRAT PEACE UMD THM PERSOW LE Ow APRE 1, som

mixes Sen ee
Ha:
Hee

(
Hi

i Name of cach person whose wsuel ploce
| H ¢ | of coaidence on Apel 1, 1040, was in | *atiebipst hie pe
&, |i | tie bousenald, manila, ig nu
nH 3g | ae cour 10 monuzz: feailocrcaviow, rand:
ES eee a4
} wri =

fi

fF

‘repos |_|; BEES eae Soy mae ere apers
Lae, : bi aT) ae

ES
: i. eye i
ital aH = |e |i

ie Tbr ater samoet ears paeeee
Digtiagusen
Frama ieee

ang
nee
a er eet

coe of ti
wer

44 Colidaen undne 1 pest ef age. Wiebe “Dadam”
tilt Yaw bat bons git 2 Bont nace

i a Rater Raber tame peman tirashing infereiacion

\d

bperm of ever
ealary reomrrea
omgileesed)

” | free, apt, mall eh,
a | Masaber of Iecochood fy order of
coer
de | Darna wwasd (0) ot sented ()
an) Tata
elec ac Gar
bg ie tan rt
oni
Giaeabent Cub-afere weehay
TH Bie pe
Serena Wat thes

7

&

is

Be) Fumber af weeks worked o me

z= ‘iB =

ps
Lt
Ss

Keron Cele
js
:

WRENP ERS

BEE BE
by

Ere

fens

PRRE

ke

re

Perere REP

RY EP
FRE

Hil:
a ;
4a3%
E
FREES
ek

bP
Mer

Fi
fl
_s

fal

E
EPEE

fe

ual 2a mal fe

o ‘ re

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

Latino a

| iN
per eh 3G 4
a REN PPR 1d Be SER: I Re et + tee
Tio lust f. DEN x ! ; y |
OE UESTIONS POR PERSONS 14 YEARS OLD AND OVER

QR ssc Peemernes om Tines 14 and 29 f std ae Soxe = Sain ce
PSs ae
‘a

‘wlihoat precise work expacianoo, extir “ep” te Cal 4b nad leave Onis. #8 en ©

C
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated March 23, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of SmartTrust 511 contained in Amendment No. 2 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-251361) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


March 23, 2021
Table 5.  Homeownership Rates for the United States:  1965 to 2007
          (in percent)
   Year     First    Second     Third     Fourth
           Quarter   Quarter   Quarter   Quarter

2007......      68.4
2006......      68.5      68.7      69.0      68.9
2005......      69.1      68.6      68.8      69.0
2004......      68.6      69.2      69.0      69.2
2003......      68.0      68.0      68.4      68.6
2002\r....      67.8      67.6      68.0      68.3
2002......      67.8      67.6      68.0      68.3
2001......      67.5      67.7      68.1      68.0
2000......      67.1      67.2      67.7      67.5

1999......      66.7      66.6      67.0      66.9
1998......      65.9      66.0      66.8      66.4
1997......      65.4      65.7      66.0      65.7
1996......      65.1      65.4      65.6      65.4
1995......      64.2      64.7      65.0      65.1
1994......      63.8      63.8      64.1      64.2
1993\r....      63.7      63.9      64.2      64.2
1993......      64.2      64.4      64.7      64.6
1992......      64.0      63.9      64.3      64.4
1991......      63.9      63.9      64.2      64.2
1990......      64.0      63.7      64.0      64.1
1989\r....      63.9      63.8      64.1      63.8

1989......      63.9      63.9      64.0      63.8
1988......      63.7      63.7      64.0      63.8
1987......      63.8      63.8      64.2      64.1
1986......      63.6      63.8      63.8      63.9
1985......      64.1      64.1      63.9      63.5
1984......      64.6      64.6      64.6      64.1
1983......      64.7      64.7      64.8      64.4
1982......      64.8      64.9      64.9      64.5
1981......      65.6      65.3      65.6      65.2
1980......      65.5      65.5      65.8      65.5
1979\r....      64.8      64.9      65.8      65.4

1979......      65.3      65.1      66.0      65.8
1978......      64.8      64.4      65.2      65.4
1977......      64.8      64.5      65.0      64.9
1976......      64.6      64.6      64.9      64.8
1975......      64.4      64.9      64.6      64.5
1974......      64.8      64.8      64.6      64.4
1973......      64.9      64.4      64.4      64.4
1972......      64.3      64.5      64.3      64.4
1971......      64.0      64.1      64.4      64.5
1970......      64.3      64.0      64.4      64.0
1969......      64.1      64.4      64.4      64.4
1968......      63.6      64.1      64.1      63.6
1967......      63.3      63.9      63.8      63.5
1966......      63.5      63.2      63.3      63.8
1965......      62.9      62.9      62.9      63.4
\r Revised.