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




Dated: August 11, 2009
By:
/s/ George J. CoatesGeorge J. CoatesPresident, Chief Executive Officerand Principal Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0545

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

RANDY CHRISTOPHER ARCHIBALD, SR.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable John W. Parker, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 28 2021

04/28/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0545
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 Coates International, Ltd. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the “Form
      10-QSB”), I, George J. Coates, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, as of the date hereof, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, the Company’s Form 10-QSB fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Security
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-QSB
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.




Dated:
              May 14, 2007
            By:
            /s/
              George J. CoatesGeorge
              J. CoatesPresident,
                Chief
                Executive Officer
              and Principal Executive
                Officer
#### Percy RATLIFF, Petitioner, v. GUERDON INDUSTRIES, INC., and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 36632.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 11, 1967.

J. B. Hodges, Lake City, for petitioner.

Robert C. Gobelman, Mathews, Osborne & Ehrlich, Jacksonville, Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lake-land, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date June 22, 1967.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

The petition is therefore denied.

The motion for attorney’s fees is also denied.

CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2014-1046

 Directorate Identifier: 2014NM021AD

CSP B-053, PART 1, R14 --- 7/10/13

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
II 

Calendar No. 171 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 155 

[Report No. 113–93] 

To designate a mountain in the State of Alaska as Denali. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 28, 2013 

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. BEGICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 

Reported by Mr. WYDEN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate a mountain in the State of Alaska as Denali. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DENALI IN THE STATE OF 

4 ALASKA. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The mountain located at 63° 04′ 

6 12′′ N, by 151° 00′ 18′′ W, in the State of Alaska shall 

7 be known and designated as ‘‘Denali’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 155 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the mountain described in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to ‘‘Denali’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 171 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 155 

[Report No. 113–93] 

A BILL 

To designate a mountain in the State of Alaska as 

Denali. 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 

Reported without amendment 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Leslie D. HORTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-154.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 30, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 9048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02744]

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Agency Information Collection Activities; Elementary-Secondary 
Staff Information Report; Cancellation of Hearing

AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

ACTION: Cancellation of hearing.

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

 SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Commission is cancelling the 
public hearing on the above proposed information collection--extension 
without change: The Elementary-Secondary Staff Information Report (EEO-
5). (77 FR 65548, October 29, 2012). No requests to present oral 
testimony at a hearing concerning the information collection were 
received from the public. Therefore, it will not be necessary to hold 
the hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald Edwards, Director, Program, 
Research and Surveys Division, 131 M Street NE., Room 4SW30F, 
Washington, DC 20507; (202) 663-4949 (voice) or (202) 663-7063 (TTY).

    For the Commission.

    Dated: January 31, 2013.
Jacqueline A. Berrien,
Chair.
[FR Doc. 2013-02744 Filed 2-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
```
#### Nan R. YOUNG, Appellant, v. Gordon C. YOUNG, Appellee.

No. 73-315.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 22, 1974.

James M. Norman, of Kirsch, Druck, Mills & Jones, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellant.

Michael K. Davis, of Watson, Hubert & Davis, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the wife, respondent below, from a final judgment entered in favor of the husband, petitioner below, wherein the trial court modified the support and maintenance provisions embodied in a 1966 New York final judgment. The evidence in the record fails to demonstrate a “substantial change m the circumstances of the parties” which is a fundamental prerequisite in a modification proceeding. Barsumian v. Barsumian, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 515. From the record it appears there was no substantial change in the petitioner’s ability to pay; on the contrary, the petitioner’s financial condition has improved when considering petitioner’s total income and assets. See Adams v. Adams, Fla.App.1973, 273 So.2d 794; Tewksbury v. Tewksbury, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 346; Carmel v. Carmel, Fla.App.1973, 282 So.2d 6; De Francisco v. De Francisco, Fla.App.1973, 273 So.2d 780. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a substantial change in the needs of the wife. See De Francisco v. De Francisco, supra; Carmel v. Carmel, supra. See also Firestone v. Firestone, Fla.1972, 263 So.2d 223.

Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

OWEN, C. J., and CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Ellann Patrice Ford, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00027

- CR v.

State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 196th District Court of Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 27389 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice

Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the

judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to delete the

assessment of attorney’s fees against Ellann Patrice Ford

. As modified, the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Ellann Patrice Ford, has adequately indicated h er inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 10, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### In re ESTATE of Chester LEWIS, Deceased. George B. BLUME, Attorney at Law, for the Executrix and the Estate of Chester Lewis, Deceased, Appellant.

No. 73-727.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 21, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
Slip Op. 01-10

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

________________________________________________

:

FAG (U.K.) LTD., THE BARDEN CORPORATION :

(U.K.) LTD., THE BARDEN CORPORATION, :

FAG BEARINGS CORPORATION, RHP BEARINGS :

LTD., NSK BEARINGS EUROPE LTD., :

AND NSK CORPORATION, :

:

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. : Consolidated Court

: No. 97-01-00063-S1

UNITED STATES, :

:

Defendant, :

:

THE TORRINGTON COMPANY, :

:

 Defendant-Intervenor. :

________________________________________________:

J U D G M E N T

This Court having received and reviewed the United States Department of Commerce,

International Trade Administration’s (“Commerce”) Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to

Court Remand, FAG (U.K). Ltd., The Barden Corporation (U.K.) Ltd., The Barden Corporation,

FAG Bearings Corporation, RHP Bearings Ltd., NSK Bearings Europe Ltd. and NSK Corporation

v. United States, 22 CIT ___, 24 F. Supp. 2d 297 (1998) (“Remand Results”), and Commerce

having complied with the Court’s remand and no responses to the Remand Results having been

submitted by the parties, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Remand Results filed by Commerce on December 15, 1998, are

affirmed in their entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that since all other issues have been decided, this case is dismissed.

__________________________________________

NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge

Dated: January 30, 2001

New York, New York
#### DEMKO’S GOLD COAST TRAILER PARK, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida et al., Appellees.

No. 1160.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

June 6, 1968.

*63C. Shelby Dale of Dale & Stevens, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

George H. Moss, II, and Sidney A. Stubbs, Jr., of Jones, Adams, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant below from a final decree enjoining it from violating certain portions of the Palm Beach County Building, Electrical and Plumbing Codes.

The appellant herein by its answer attacked the statutory authority of the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County to adopt building, electrical or plumbing codes asserting that Chapter 57-1691, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1957, as amended by Chapter 59-1686, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1959 is invalid and unconstitutional.

The pre-trial order acknowledges that the validity of these statutes is one of the issues for trial, however, the final decree does not expressly rule upon the question.

Nevertheless, the entry of the decree appealed from constituted a negative disposition of this question thereby implicitly holding that said acts are valid.

This finding of validity was assigned as error and is argued in the briefs. Indeed, the appellees in their brief state that the only issue on this appeal concerns ap-pellee’s statutory authority to adopt and enforce building, electrical and plumbing codes.

Under Article V, Section 4(2) of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., appeals from final judgments or decrees directly passing upon the validity of a state statute proceed directly to the Supreme Court.

Although the court below did not explicitly rule upon the validity of the acts, we are of the opinion that a decision as to their validity was necessary to a determination of this cause and hence this court is without jurisdiction of this appeal. Harrell’s Candy Kitchen, Inc. v. Sarasota-Manatee Air. A., Fla.1959, 111 So.2d 439; Evans v. Carroll, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 375.

We are, therefore, providing sua sponte for the transfer of this cause to the Supreme Court since it appears we are without jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal.

Whereupon, this court, as authorized by Rule 2.1(a) (5) (d), Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A., directs that the notice of appeal and all other papers filed herein shall at the expiration of five days from the filing of this opinion be transferred to the Supreme Court of the State of Florida.

It is so ordered.

WALDEN, C. J., and OWEN, J., and GONZALEZ, JOSE A., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                   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 Global Preferred Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby 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 result of operations of the
Company.


Date: August 14, 2003                   /s/ Edward F. McKernan
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Edward F. McKernan
                                        Chief Executive Officer
#### John WOODY, a/k/a Frank Cohen, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-487.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 25, 1971.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed, and remanded to the trial court for the purpose of entering a proper sentence, by the deletion of the words, “on each count, to run concurrently.”

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., RAWLS, J., and VANN, HAROLD R., Associate Judge, concur.
#### Joseph Nathaniel SIMMONS, a/k/a Willie Johnson, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 72-590, 72-591.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 19, 1973.

*370Robert E. Jagger, Public- Defender, and William F. Casler, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty.-Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of two separate armed robberies and, in separate counts, of using a firearm in the commission of each of said robberies. Appellant was also convicted of an assault on a third victim with intent to commit murder in the first degree and, again in a separate count, of using a firearm in the commission of that assault. He was sentenced to consecutive life sentences for each of the robberies and also given five-year consecutive sentences on each “firearm” count. In addition, appellant was sentenced to a consecutive term of fifteen years for the assault with intent to murder charge and given another consecutive five years for the use of the firearm therein. Appellant filed a timely consolidated appeal.

We find that the grounds relied upon by appellant for reversal of the judgments are without merit. However, the matter that concerns us, yet not raised in the briefs, is that the trial court imposed separate consecutive sentences on appellant for using a firearm in the commission of each of the above-mentioned felonies. This is impermissible since the use of the firearm in each case was the same act which constituted the assault required in each case. Thus, of itself, such use became a facet or phase of the same transaction, to-wit; the completed crime, and merged therein upon a finding of guilt thereof.1

Accordingly, as to the three convictions of using a firearm in the commission of a felony, this cause is remanded with directions that the sentences therefor be vacated and set aside.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.

1

. *See,*Hernandez v. State (Fla.App.1973), 278 So.2d 307. *See also,*Cone v. State, Fla.1973, 285 So.2d 12; Harris v. State (Fla App.1973), 286 So.2d 32; Wright v. State (Fla.App.1973), 279 So.2d 70; Davis v. State (Fla.App.1973), 277 So.2d 300; and Easton v. State (Fla.App.1971), 250 So.2d 294.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alexander Powell, Appellant.

[735 NYS2d 777]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered February 20, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, 4V2 to 9 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the People’s summation is unpreserved and *we*decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no basis for reversal because the rhetorical devices challenged by defen*291dant were within the range of acceptable advocacy and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial *(see, People v D'Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119, *lv denied*81 NY2d 884). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.
No. 11076.

#### Patchell *v.*The Board of Commissioners of Clermont County et al.

Decided October 12, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Clermont county.

*Messrs. Nichols & Nichols,*for plaintiff in error..

*Mr. C. C. Kearns,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Eli H. Speidel,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, Davis and Price, JJ., concur.