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



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   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.
    
    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    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.
    
    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 registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design and material weakness 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 control over financial reporting.
 Date:  April 28, 2006
    /s/ Caryl P. ShepherdCaryl P. ShepherdChief Accounting Officer
(Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer)
Certification Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Casey Forward, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A, of Globetech Ventures Corp.

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 period covered by the 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.



Date: October 17, 2005



Casey Forward



Chief Financial Officer
In the Matter of 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

~1ECEIVED 

OCT 1 5 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

FAA Docket No. [To be Assigned] 

DMS No.: FAA2013-1081 

BOTTON ENTERPRISES, INC., 

Respondent 

FAA Region: Western Pacific 

Jndge: Richard C. Goodwin 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEAL 

The Complainant and Respondent having come to a resolution of this matter, 

the Respondent hereby files this motion requesting permission to withdraw its appeal 

of Complainant's complaint under 49 C.F.R. 821-12. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14'h day of October, 2014 

I 

Timothy I. McCulloch 

Attorneys for Respondent 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by facsimile where indicated and via 

UPS Overnight addressed as follows: 

ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY 

ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Adam Runkel, Esq., Counsel for Complainant 

Office of the Regional Counsel, Western-Pacific Region, APW-7.12 

Federal Aviation Administration 

15000 Aviation Boulevard 

Hawthorne, CA 90250 

Telephone: (425) 227-2914 

*Facsimile: (31 0) 725-6816 

Hon. Richard C. Goodwin, 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Attn: Patricia Matthews 

*Facsimile: (202) 366-7536 

Dated: October 14, 2014 

2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JEFFREY RYAN REGULA,

Petitioner

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 717 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of March, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 10(a)



 EXHIBIT (10)(a) 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 







 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in the Statement of Additional
Information and to the use of our reports: (1) dated April 9, 2010, with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements and schedules of Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company, and (2) dated April 27, 2010, with respect to the financial
statements of the subaccounts of Separate Account VA HNY, included in Post-Effective Amendment No. 5 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-149337) under the Securities Act of 1933 and related Prospectus of Flexible Premium Variable
Annuity – P. 
 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Des Moines, Iowa 
 April 27, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 12255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4867]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    The following notice of a scheduled meeting is published pursuant 
to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-
409, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIMES AND DATES: The Commission has scheduled a meeting for the 
following date: March 9, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.

PLACE: Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, Lobby 
Level Hearing Room (Room 1300).

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commission has scheduled this meeting to 
consider various rulemaking matters, including the issuance of proposed 
rules and the approval of final rules. The Commission may also consider 
and vote on dates and times for future meetings. The agenda for this 
meeting will be made available to the public and posted on the 
Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov at least seven (7) days 
prior to the meeting. In the event that the time or date of the meeting 
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time and 
place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: David A. Stawick, Secretary of the 
Commission, 202-418-5071.

David A. Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-4867 Filed 2-27-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
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 January 31, 2011, 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

March 17, 2011
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

      Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of
China Medicine Corporation (the "Company"), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of his knowledge:


(1) The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2006 (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.


Dated: September 20, 2006


/s/ Senshan Yang
--------------------------------
Senshan Yang
Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Huizhen Yu
---------------------
Huizhen Yu
Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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
32.1



Section
1350 Certification



In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of OSL Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended
November 30, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert H. Rothenberg, Chief
Executive Officer and I, Thomas D’Orazio, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 our knowledge:



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:
    January 20, 2015 | /s/
    Robert H. Rothenberg                           
|-------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|                           | Robert H. Rothenberg,                                  
|                           | Chief Executive
    Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|                           |                                                        
|Date:
January 20, 2015     | /s/
    Thomas D’Orazio                                
|                           | Thomas D’Orazio,                                       
|                           | Chief Financial
    Officer                            



This
certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall
not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically
incorporates it by reference.
1

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 94-20067

Summary Calendar.

Nancy E. HECKER and John Hecker, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

Oct. 4, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Texas.

Before DUHÉ, WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Nancy Hecker challenges the district court's dismissal of her

suit as time-barred. We reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND

Hecker filed suit in Texas state court complaining that on

July 8, 1991, Wal-Mart's negligence caused her to slip and fall in

the Wal-Mart store and suffer personal injuries. Hecker mailed her

complaint to the state court clerk's office on or about July 1,

1993. On July 7, the clerk's office informed her that the check

enclosed for the filing fee was insufficient and that an additional

$20 was required. On July 9, one day after the applicable two-year

statute of limitations had run, the clerk's office received the

additional amount and marked the complaint filed. About a month

later, Wal-Mart removed the case to federal court and moved to

dismiss it as time-barred. The district court granted the motion.

This appeal followed.
2

DISCUSSION

It is undisputed that the applicable Texas statute of

limitations required that Hecker file her personal injury suit with

the state clerk by July 8, 1993. V.T.C.A. Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code §

16.003 (person must bring personal injury claim not later than two

years after the day the cause of action accrues); Texas Rules

Civ.Proc., Rule 22 (suit is commenced by filing petition in the

office of the clerk). The question before us is whether tendering

documents without the proper filing fees constitutes filing. Texas

case law provides a clear answer.

The longstanding rule in Texas is that "an instrument is

deemed in law filed at the time it is left with the clerk,

regardless of whether or not a file mark is placed on the

instrument and regardless of whether the file mark gives some other

date of filing." Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. LaCoke, 585 S.W.2d 678,

680 (1979); see also Arndt v. Arndt, 709 S.W.2d 281, 282

(Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ) (per curiam).

Furthermore, an instrument is deemed filed even if it is tendered

without the appropriate filing fee. Arndt, 709 S.W.2d at 282

(examining language in statute governing filing fees and holding

that paying fees is not a condition precedent to filing); see also

Port Distrib. Corp. v. Fritz Chem. Co., 775 S.W.2d 669, 670

(Tex.App.—Dallas 1989, writ dism'd by agr.) (noting that clerk's

refusal to file-stamp a document because filing fee was not

attached was improper). In light of this clear precedent, we must

conclude that Hecker's suit was filed when received by the clerk
3

and thus timely.

CONCLUSION

The district court's dismissal of Hecker's complaint is

REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-30605

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Eric Teague, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:15-CR-176-1

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Eric Teague has moved for leave 

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Teague has not filed a response. 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 26, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-30605 Document: 00516449324 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2022
No. 21-30605

2

During the pendency of this appeal, Teague completed the sentence 

imposed on revocation of supervised release and was released from custody. 

Because he has not shown that he will suffer collateral consequences as 

a result of the revocation of his supervised release and because no additional 

term of supervised release was imposed, the instant appeal does not present 

a case or controversy, and this court lacks jurisdiction. See Spencer v. Kemna, 

523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT, and counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is DENIED as unnecessary.

Case: 21-30605 Document: 00516449324 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2022
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0102

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

LAWRENCE JOHN JAKUB,

Defendant and Appellant

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 26, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Beth Baker

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 18 2023

05/18/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0102
1

Werner, Christopher

From: Werner, Christopher

Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 1:29 PM

To: 'Szabo, Aaron'

Cc: Lorang, Phil; Jones, Rhea; Beaver, Melinda; Marks, Matthew; Anderson, Lea; VanLare, 

Paula; Greenglass, Nora; Smith, Kristi; Wood, Anna

Subject: EPA responses to Interagency Comments

Attachments: EPA RESPONSE to Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866_13563_RHR 

NPRM_03242016(2).docx

Aaron, 

 

In response to interagency comments received this morning regarding EPA’s proposed revisions to the regional haze 

rule, attached please find document for interagency review. 

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, 

Chris Werner 

US EPA – Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Air Quality Policy Division 

(919) 541-5133 

werner.christopher@epa.gov
NO. 07-02-0202-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

OCTOBER 1, 2003

______________________________

QUINTON L. JOHNSON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2002-439,305; HON. CECIL G. PURYEAR, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________

Before QUINN, REAVIS, and CAMPBELL, JJ.

Quinton L. Johnson (appellant) appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled

substance, with intent to deliver. Through two issues, he contends that the trial court erred

by allowing in two hearsay statements. We overrule the issues and affirm the judgment.

Issues One and Two – Admission of Purported Hearsay Testimony

As previously mentioned, appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling

his objections to purported hearsay. The first instance involved an officer testifying about
2

what a third party told him regarding appellant’s gang affiliation. The second concerned

reference to what a witness’ brother had said about appellant residing in the witness’

house. As to the former instance, the same evidence (i.e. what a third party told the officer

about appellant’s gang affiliation) had been solicited and admitted without objection earlier

in the trial. Because the purported hearsay was previously admitted without objection, any

error arising from its re-introduction later in the trial was cured. Hudson v. State, 675

S.W.2d 507, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (holding that error in the admission of evidence

is cured when the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection). 

As to the second instance of purported hearsay, the latter consisted of the State

asking a witness (Ms. Mitchell) whether it would surprise her to know that Charles Mitchell

told the police that appellant and three others “stayed in the southeast bedroom” of her

house. However, that was not the first time reference was made to Charles Mitchell

informing the police of that matter. Appellant had previously asked the same witness “[i]f

Charles Mitchell said in his report that they were all four living there [including appellant],

Charles is not correct probably, right?” Having first presented the alleged hearsay to the

jury, appellant cannot complain of its inadmissibility when the State revisited it. Hudson

v. State, supra. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Brian Quinn

 Justice

Do not publish.