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





CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





Certification of Chief Executive Officer


of Periodic Report Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) and Rule 15d-14(a)





I, M. Grier Eliasek, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:





1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TP Flexible Income Fund, Inc. (the “Company”);





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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4) The Company’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 Company 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 Company, 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 Company’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 Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Company’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5) The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’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 Company’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 Company’s internal control over financial reporting.








/s/ M. Grier Eliasek


M. Grier Eliasek


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)


Date: November 13, 2019
#### The State, ex rel. Kurtz, *v.*Bliss et al., Deputy State Supervisors of Elections, Summit County.

(No. 30776

Decided December 11, 1946.)

*213
      *Mr. Daniel E. Falkner*and *Mr. William 1. Dotson, ■*for relator.

*Mr. Alva J. Russell,*prosecuting attorney, *Mr. William A. Spencer*and *Mr. James M. Hinton,*for respondents.

Bell, J.

No evidence was ottered in support of any of the allegations contained in the pleadings, nor have the parties filed an agreed statement of facts. Therefore, the cause will be disposed of as though on motion for judgment on the pleadings.

At the outset it may be well to restate the principle that a writ of mandamus is not a writ of right, but that the granting of such writ is a matter which rests in the sound discretion of the court.

In the case of *State, ex rel. Apple,*v. *Pence et al., Board of Education of Shelby County School Dist.,*137 Ohio St., 569, 31 N. E. (2d), 841, it was held:

■ “In exercising the extraordinary power of mandamus a court should take into consideration the facts and conditions existing at the time it determines 'whether to issue a peremptory writ.” See, also, *Trumbull County Board of Education*v. *State, ex rel. Van Wye,*122 Ohio St., 247, 171 N. E., 241, and *State, ex rel. Haines,*v. *Board of Education of Greene County School Dist.,*131 Ohio St., 609, 3 N. E. (2d), 527.

With that well-established rule in mind, we are confronted with this factual situation: There is a sub*214sisting decree enjoining’ the respondents from doing the very act which the relator in the instant case asks the court to compel respondents to do by the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

In such a situation the law in this state has been firmly established for many years.

In the case of *Ohio & Indiana Rd. Co.*v. *Commrs. of Wyandot County,*7 Ohio St., 278, this court held:

“The court will not, by mandamus, compel a party to do what, by a subsisting decree of injunction, he is prohibited from doing, although the party seeking the remedy by mandamus is not a party to the decree of injunction.”

There has been no deviation from the rule pronounced in that case. See, also, *State, ex rel. Grant,*v. *Joint Board of County Commrs. of Wood and Hancock Counties,*106 Ohio St., 201, 140 N. E., 124; *State, ex rel. Standard Oil Co.,*v. *Harris, Bldg. Inspector,*109 Ohio St., 392, 141 N. E., 244; *State, ex rel. Keville,*v. *Faurot et al., City Commrs.,*126 Ohio St., 646, 186 N. E., 718, and *State, ex rel. First National Bank, North Baltimore,*v. *Village of Botkins,*141 Ohio St., 437, 48 N. E. (2d), 865.

The respondents having been enjoined from Ordering or holding the requested election, it follows that the writ will be denied and the petition dismissed.

*Writ' denied.*

Weygandt, C. J., Williams, Turner, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

Zimmerman, J., not participating.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.03 MB)

Tags:DLA Aviation, DLA Aviation - Ogden, DLA Aviation Employee Spotlight

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Exhibit 32.1

AMERICAN RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.

Certification Furnished Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certify as
follows:

The
foregoing certifications are subject to the limitations and qualifications set forth in the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K.

|Date: March 29, 2004 |                                                            
|-------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                     | /s/RALPH S. ROBERTSRalph S. Roberts
Chief Executive Officer
|                     | /s/WILLIAM G. TAVESWilliam G. Taves
Chief Financial Officer

---

QuickLinks
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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 5, 2019

Order 

Clerk

April 5, 2019

159147(13)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 159147

v COA: 345722

Livingston CC: 16-023396-FH,

 16-023397-FH

DAVID PRICE, III,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellee to extend the time 

for filing his answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer 

submitted on April 1, 2019, is accepted as timely filed.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Principal Executive Officer, 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 CrowdGather, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Sanjay Sabnani, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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.





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








/s/ Sanjay SabnaniSanjay Sabnani

Chief Executive Officer

September 14, 2010
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.96 MB)

Tags:M1A1, AMOC, Marine Corps Systems Command, MCSC, Defense Logistics Agency, Marine Corps, Marines, DLA, 3D printing, MARCORSYSCOM, Advanced Manufacturing Operations Cell, Abrams Tank, impeller

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 16

- 00330

- CR Rogelio RINCON , Jr., Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012CR2442 Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 13, 2016
DIS MISSED
On June 16 , 2016, this court issued an order stating this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification that shows appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record within thirty days of the order. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174, 175

- 76 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order). Appellant’s counsel filed a response in which he states that he has reviewed the clerk’s record and “can find no right of appeal” for appellant; counsel concedes that we may dismiss the appeal for that reason. In light of the record presented, Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss04

- 16

- 00330

- CR

- 2

- this appeal. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d). The record does not contain a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal; to the contrary, the trial court certification in the record states “this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by t he prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the clerk’s record supports the trial court’s certification that the defendant has no right of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2( d).
PER CURIAM Do not publish
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Media Mechanics, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Matthew Zipchen, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.





Date: June 21, 2013
By:
/s/ Matthew ZipchenMatthew Zipchen

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer

Principal Financial Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**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**

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002),I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Golf Galaxy, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Companyfor the quarterly period ended May 27, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
| Date: July 11, 2006 | /s/ RICHARD C. NORDVOLD   |   |
|--------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
|                     | Richard C. Nordvold       |   |
| * *                 | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 30, 1996 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ON FORM
10-K.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-26-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1996
<CASH>                                       7,493,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,506,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,041,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,818,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            26,261,000
<PP&E>                                     219,253,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             118,084,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             172,129,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      118,066,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (91,447,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               172,129,000
<SALES>                                    445,424,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           445,424,000
<CGS>                                      141,032,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              413,111,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            41,291,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               332,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          27,714,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (36,692,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    81,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (36,773,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (1,688,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (38,461,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EPA Registration

83520-7

Volume 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7442

BENTLEY LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COUNTY OF HARNETT; D. WHITTENTON, Officer and other U/K Officers; CITY OF DUNN, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-9-5-BO) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 3, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bentley Locklear, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Allen Davis, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Billy Ray Godwin, Jr., Dunn, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* For the purposes of this appeal we assume that the date Locklear wrote on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it would have been submitted to prison authorities. See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 2 PER CURIAM: Bentley Locklear seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Locklear’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 17, 1999. Locklear’s notice of appeal was filed on October 11, 1999. * Because Locklear failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-3 rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED