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



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION RULE 15d-14(a)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-K of Mobile Services Group, 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 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)
    
    Not applicablec)
    
    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; andd)
    
    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 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;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.
  /s/  Douglas WaugamanPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 23.1





Independent Auditor's Consent



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(No. 333-109878) on Form S-8 of PSB Holdings, Inc. of our report dated January
21, 2005, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of PSB Holdings, Inc. and
Subsidiary as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated
statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the three years
in the period ended December 31, 2004, which appears in the December 31, 2004,
Annual Report on Form 10-K of PSB Holdings, Inc.

WIPFLI LLP

Wipfli LLP


Wausau, Wisconsin
March 11, 2005
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the President and Chief 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 Report of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (the Bank) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Gilleran, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 results of operations of the Bank.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2006                
|                                     
|/s/    James E. Gilleran             
|James E. Gilleran                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Ronald Lee PARKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. A-1676.

Court of Appeals of Alaska.

Jan. 23, 1987.

Robert A. Evans, Asst. Public Defender, and Dana Fabe, Public Defender, Anchorage, for appellant.

Russell S. Babcock, Asst. Dist. Atty., Victor C. Krumm, Dist. Atty., Anchorage, and Harold M. Brown, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before BRYNER, C.J., and COATS and SINGLETON, JJ.

OPINION

BRYNER, Chief Judge.

Ronald Lee Parks was convicted of robbery in the first degree and was sentenced by Superior Court Judge S.J. Buckalew, Jr., to a presumptive term of fifteen years. Parks appeals his sentence, contending that the sentencing court erred in declining to find, as a mitigating factor, that Parks’ conduct was among the least serious within the definition of the offense. AS 12.55.-155(d)(9).

We conclude that this case is governed by our recent decision in *State v. Richards,*720 P.2d 47 (Alaska App.1986). As we indicated in *Richards,*the distinction between first-degree robbery and second-degree robbery hinges on the use or threatened use of a dangerous instrument. In determining whether conduct involved in a first-degree robbery is among the least serious within the definition of the offense, the sentencing court’s primary focus must be on the extent of actual risk that was created by the use or threatened use of a *598dangerous instrument in the case before it. *Id.*at 50-51 (Singleton, Judge, concurring).

In Parks’ case, it is undisputed that no dangerous instrument was actually used or carried. The offense qualified as a first-degree robbery only because Parks verbally threatened the use of a gun. The actual risk to the victims created in these circumstances is among the lowest within the definition of first-degree robbery and borders on the risk that typically exists in a case of second-degree robbery. Apart from Parks’ verbal threat to use a gun, the sentencing court found no circumstances in this case tending to increase the seriousness of Parks’ conduct, and there appear to be none. In fact, Parks appears to have been substantially impaired by drugs at the time of the offense. His efforts to complete the robbery were highly ineffectual, and he was readily disabled and apprehended at the scene. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the sentencing court’s rejection of the proposed mitigating factor was clearly erroneous. *See Juneby v. State,*641 P.2d 823, 834 (Alaska App.1982), *modified in part,*665 P.2d 30 (Alaska App.1983).

The sentence is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED for resentencing, with directions that the mitigating factor set out in AS 12.55.155(d)(9) be deemed established. We express no opinion as to whether any actual adjustment of the presumptive term is warranted in light of the mitigating factor. *See Linn v. State,*658 P.2d 150, 154 (Alaska App.1983).
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RAYMOND REYNOLDS,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2015-3013

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. PH-1221-13-0307-W-1.

______________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Upon review of this recently docketed petition for review, it appears that Raymond Reynolds’s petition was 

not timely filed. 

It appears that on July 3, 2014, the Merit Systems 

Protection Board (Board) issued its Final Order, finding 

that the administrative judge correctly dismissed Reynolds’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court received 

Reynolds’s petition for review on September 8, 2014, 67

days after the Board issued its final order.

Case: 15-3013 Document: 2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/29/2014
2 REYNOLDS v. ARMY

The time for filing a petition for review from a Board 

decision or order is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1), 

which provides in relevant part that “[n]otwithstanding 

any other provision of law, any petition for review shall be 

filed within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the 

final order or decision of the Board.” 5 U.S.C. 

§ 7703(b)(1)(A). In order to be timely, a petition for review must be received by the court within the filing 

deadline. Pinat v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 931 F.2d 1544, 

1546 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (petition is filed when received by 

this court); see also Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A). This filing 

period is “statutory, mandato-ry, [and] jurisdictional.” 

Monzo v. Dep’t of Transp., 735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 

1984).

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) Reynolds is directed to show cause, within 30 days 

of the date of filing of this order, why this petition should 

not be dismissed as untimely. The Department of the 

Army may also respond within that time.

(2) The briefing schedule is stayed.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court

s30

Case: 15-3013 Document: 2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/29/2014
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-1770-10

JERI LEIGH BARRON, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

COLLIN COUNTY

KELLER, P.J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Just last month, we handed down our opinion in Ouellette v. State, a case that is factually 1

similar to the present case. In Ouellette, as in this case, there was evidence that there were pills in 2

the defendant’s car that were capable of causing intoxication. The question was whether that 3

 2011 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1373 (October 12). 1

As in the present case, an officer in Ouellette found pills in the defendant’s car that were

2

capable of causing intoxication. See id.

 Id.

3
BARRON — 2

evidence authorized submission of the “synergistic effect” jury charge. We held that it did.4

The court of appeals held in this case that similar evidence did not authorize submission of

the “synergistic effect” charge. In so holding, the court of appeals did not have the benefit of our 5

opinion in Ouellette. Ouellette casts doubt on whether there was error in this case and, even if error

occurred, how the harm analysis should proceed. Rather than conduct a harm analysis on what may

not even be error, I would vacate the decision of the court of appeals and remand this case for

reconsideration in light of Ouellette.

6

Because the Court does not do so, I respectfully dissent. 

Filed: November 9, 2011

Publish

 Id.

4

 Barron v. State, No. 05-09-00589-CR, 2010 WL 2183281 (not designated for 5

publication).

Although the issue of error was not raised by the State in its petition, this Court may grant 6

discretionary review on its own motion. Tex. R. App. P. 66.1 (“The Court of Criminal Appeals may

review a court of appeals’ decision in a criminal case on its own initiative under Rule 67 or in a

petition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”), 67.1 (“[T]he court of Criminal Appeals may grant

review of a court of appeals’ decision in a criminal case at any time before the mandate of the court

of appeals issues.”). Doing so is especially appropriate here, where the court of appeals has not had

the benefit of a decision from this Court that is directly relevant to the issues that were addressed

below.
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 on Form 10-Q of KBS Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (the Registrant) for the quarter ended
September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Charles J. Schreiber Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Registrant, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge and belief:



|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 Registrant.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 11, 2009



| |  |  |  |                                     
| |  |  |  | ------------------------------------
| |  |  |  | /s/ Charles J. Schreiber,
Jr.       
| |  |  |  | Charles J. Schreiber, Jr.           
| |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board,              
| |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director
* Based on external data file CUTPOINT.D (SEE P. 16&17 OF EPA REPORT M6.IM.001)
* I/M240 cutpoints for 2015 calendar year model runs
* First year is MY2015

I/M CUTPOINTS
* Block 1 (LDGV, LDGT1)
  0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   
  0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800    
  0.800   0.800   0.800   1.200   1.200   
 15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  
 15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000 
 15.000  15.000  15.000  20.000  20.000  
  2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000  
  2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000
  2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000

* Block 2 (LDGT2, LDGT3)
  1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000
  1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   
  1.000   1.000   1.000   2.400   2.400      
 20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000
 20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000 
 20.000  20.000  20.000  60.000  60.000    
  2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500 
  2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500    
  2.500   2.500   2.500   3.000   3.000   

* Block 3 (LDGT4)
  2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400
  2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400  
  2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400     
 60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000
 60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  
 60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  
  4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000
  4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000     
  4.000   4.000   4.000   4.500   4.500   

* Block 4 (HDGV)
  2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400
  2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400  
  2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400     
 60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000
 60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  
 60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  
  4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000
  4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000     
  4.000   4.000   4.000   4.500   4.500
**Exhibit
      32.1**








**CERTIFICATION
      OF DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








I,
      Zhenyong Gao, Chief Executive Officer of China YouTV Corp.,


certify
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as enacted by Section 906 of the


Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended


March
      31,
      2007 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies fully


complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities


Exchange
      Act of 1934; and





(2)
      information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
      all


material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of China YouTV
      Corp.




**CHINA
              YOUTV CORP.**Date: May
              14,
              2007
            By:
            /s/ Zhenyong
              GaoZhenyong
              GaoTitle Chief
              Executive 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


required
      by Section 906, has been provided to China YouTV Corp. and


will
      be
      retained by China YouTV Corp. and furnished to the


Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| 1.     | Such                    Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending 30                    November 2007, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB                    for                    the quarter ending 30 November 2007, fairly presents, in all                    material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                    of                    Red Rock Pictures Holdings                    Inc. |

|  By: | /s/                Lorraine                Evanoff |
|-----------|----------------------------------------------------|
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.

June 12 , 2020 

# Order

Clerk June 1 2 , 2020

158652( 6 5 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 158652

v COA: 338030

Oakland CC: 2016

- 260154

- FC

KRISTOPHER ALLEN HUGHES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of the Criminal Defense Attorneys of

Michigan , the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, and the American Civil

Liberties Union t o extend the time for filing a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The

amicus brief will be accepted as timely filed if s ubmitted on or before July 31 , 2020.
August 8, 2016

Mr. Stephen Gowdy

Gowdy Brothers Aerospace, LLC

Consultant for Inflight Holdings LLC

8170 Old Carriage Court North

Suite 200

Shakopee, MN 55379

Re: FAA–2016–2523

Dear Mr. Gowdy:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and 

have determined that we will continue to process your petition. 

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov, we 

are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 107 (www.faa.gov/uas) will satisfy your request. We have determined that 

your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your 

petition for exemption. 

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will 

publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments, if we have 

not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 18

- 00207

- CV

IN RE DPA'S ASSIST T HE OFFICER FOUNDATIO N, INC.

Original Proceeding

ORDER

Relator’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed on June 29, 2018 . The Court

requests a response from the parties to the proceeding. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b). Any

response shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court no later than 21 days from the date of

this order.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Response requested

Order issued and filed A ugust 1 , 2018
##### 



EXHIBIT 3.1.5
 CERTIFICATE OF DISSOLUTION
OF
GLOBAL PREFERRED HOLDINGS, INC.
      Name
    
    AddressJoseph F. Barone
    
    583 Laramie LaneMah Wah, NJ 07430Edward McKernan
    
    6455 East Johns Crossing, Suite 402Duluth, Georgia 30097Thomas W. Montgomery
    
    3975 Johns Creek Court, Suite 100Suwanee, Georgia 30024Milan M. Radonich
    
    100 Nyala Farms Rd., Building 100Westport, CT 06880C. Simon Scupham
    
    44 Church StreetHamilton, Bermuda HM 12




---



##### 



Name and Address
    
    OfficeEdward McKernan
    
    Chief Executive Officer and President6455 East Johns CrossingSuite 402Duluth, Georgia 30097Bradley Barks
    
    Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice6455 East Johns Crossing
    
    President of FinanceSuite 402Duluth, Georgia 30097Caryl Shepherd
    
    Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer6455 East Johns Crossing
    
    and ControllerSuite 402Duluth, Georgia 30097
 th
 GLOBAL PREFERRED HOLDINGS, INC.By:
    /s/ Edward F. McKernanName:
    Edward F. McKernanTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer