alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

           EXHIBIT 31.1-CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

     I, William R. Herren, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Asia Automotive
Acquisition Corporation;

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 officers 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 we 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; and

     c) 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 officers 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; and

     b) 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.


Dated: August 15, 2006                  /s/ William R. Herren
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        William R. Herren
                                        Chairman of the Board
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1912 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1912

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on calcium chloride 
                               phosphate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2009

  Mr. Roberts introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on calcium chloride 
                               phosphate.

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

SECTION 1. CALCIUM CHLORIDE PHOSPHATE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.72 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to calcium chloride phosphate) 
is amended by striking the date in the effective period column and 
inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Eligible Professional/Physician Group Size Distribution (2011 claims)

Group Size

Number of 

Groups (TINs)

Eligible 

Professionals

Number of 

Physicians

Percent of 

Physicians

Cumulative 

Percentage

100+ 1,190 351,547 273,495 30.2% 30.2%

50-99 1,627 111,183 78,414 8.7% 38.8%

25-49 3,728 126,594 89,309 9.9% 48.7%

20-24 1,892 41,389 28,954 3.2% 51.9%

10-19 8,647 116,274 82,429 9.1% 61.0%

2-9 68,715 241,759 175,602 19.4% 80.4%

1 222,473 222,473 177,894 19.6% 100.0%

Total 308,272 1,211,219 906,097 100.0%
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Paul F. O’Flaherty, Respondent. First American Bank of New York, Appellant; Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Casey, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 12, 1989, which, *inter alia,*
      *902ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant was employed for approximately two years as an industrial engineer in charge of Glie Farms’ computer operations and concentrated on the farm’s accounts receivable. His employment ended on March 9, 1988 due to the bankruptcy of the farm. First American Bank of New York (hereinafter the Bank) was a secured creditor of the farm due to an outstanding loan of about $400,000. Beginning on March 11, 1988, the Bank, with the consent of the Bankruptcy Trustee, engaged the services of claimant and other co-workers to continue the same computer work at the farm in an effort to collect accounts receivable. The Bank informed claimant that he would not be an employee of the Bank, that he would be paid at the rate of $135 per day upon his submission of a voucher in his name, and that the voucher could be submitted at any time. No taxes or Social Security contributions were withheld and claimant obtained no direction, training or supervision as to his work from the Bank. When problems arose claimant spoke to employees of Glie Farms. Claimant’s earnings were reported on Form 1099 and such payments were subject only to the approval of the Bank’s general counsel. Claimant was free to seek other employment. Claimant had no set hours or days to work, and he could come and go as he pleased. He worked on a day-to-day basis only and did not know how long the position would last. Claimant was not required to submit reports to the Bank. Claimant charged only for the work he actually performed. Claimant’s relationship with the Bank was terminated on June 3, 1988 when the Bank switched the operation from the farm’s premises to its own. Significantly, claimant then sought employment at the Bank, but his request was refused. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that claimant was an employee of the Bank and, therefore, entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.

The Board’s decision should be reversed. These circumstances do not supply substantial evidence of sufficient supervision, direction or control by the Bank to make claimant a Bank employee *(see, Matter of Ted Is Back Corp. [Roberts],*64 NY2d 725). The Board’s decision stressed the fact that claimant was performing the same services for the Bank that he had performed for Glie Farms, his former employer. We do not consider this fact decisive. The issue is claimant’s relationship to the Bank, not the nature of the services being performed. That relationship is not affected by claimant’s prior *903relationship to the farm, which was admittedly that of employer-employee.

Decision reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this court’s decision. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies this annual report on Form 10-K/A (the Form 10-K/A) for the year ended
January 1, 2006 of COMSYS IT Partners, Inc. (the Issuer).

In connection with the Form 10-K/A, each of the
undersigned, Larry L. Enterline, Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, and Joseph C. Tusa, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of their knowledge:

(i) the Form 10-K/A fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

(ii) the information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer as of the dates and for the periods indicated in the Form 10-K/A.

Dated: May 1, 2006



By:

/s/    LARRY L.
ENTERLINEName:

Larry L. EnterlineTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/    JOSEPH C. TUSA,
JR.Name:

Joseph C. Tusa, Jr.Title:

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 175

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v. A lexis Patricia

- Nichole Hanson, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20230053

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Douglas A

. Bahr , Judge.

AFFIRMED

. Per Curiam

. Chase R. Lingle, Assistant State’s Attorney, Mandan, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Justin M. Balzer, Bismarck, ND , for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.1 State v. Hanson No. 20230053

Per Curiam

. [¶1] Alexis Hanson appeals from a district court judgment entered after a jury convicted her of child abuse and child neglect. Hanson argues the evidence was insufficient to find her guilty of both charges a nd the evidence created reasonable doubt. Hanson also argues the court erred in sentencing her to one
year of incarceration. We affirm.
[¶2] “In reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the defendant ‘bears the burden of showing the evidence reveals no reasonable inference of guilt when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.’” State v. Rai , 2019 ND 71, ¶ 13, 924 N.W.2d 410 (citing State v. Truelove , 2017 ND 283, ¶ 7, 904 N.W.2d 342). When viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude sufficient evidence exists that could allow a jury to convict on both charges.
[¶3] W hen determining if a court abused its discretion in sentencing, we look
to whether the district court acted within the statutorily prescribed sentencing limits or relied on impermissible factors. State v. Thomas , 2020 ND 30, ¶ 17, 938 N.W.2 d 897 (citing State v. Clark , 2012 ND 135, ¶ 18, 818 N.W.2d 739). The court here acted within the statutor y limits by imposing the mandatory minimum sentence under N.D.C.C. § 14

- 09

- 22(1) and (4). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P

. 35.1(a)(2) and (4)

. [¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Stacy J. Louser, D.J.
[¶5] The Honorable Stacy J. Louser , D .J., sitting in place of Bahr , J., disqualified.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 2, 2022

No. 04-22-00402-CV

Jose Mario BALLESTEROS,

Appellant

v.

Sonia Rocio BARRIENTOS,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021FLA001101D1

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court clerk has filed a notification of late record stating that the appellant failed 

to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record and that appellant is 

not entitled to preparation of the clerk’s record without paying the fee.

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court on or before 

November 17, 2022 that either: (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been 

made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. If 

appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing dismissal of 

appeal if appellant fails to comply with an order of this court).

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of November, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Dear Mr. Camp:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket 

No. FAA−2015−4030). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) 

which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to 

proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation 

please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at

www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the 

requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking 

number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process 

your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 1/18/15. If we do 

not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4549.

Sincerely,

/S/

Michael Cameron

Program Analyst
Exhibit 31.3

Certification

I, Denise D. Roberts,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period
covered by this report on Form 10-K of the American Express Credit Account Master Trust (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, 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, all of the distribution, servicing or other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements
required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of
New York Mellon and TransCentra, Inc. (formerly known as Regulus Group LLC).



|                     |  |                                                          
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 28, 2016
|                     | 
|By:                  |  | /s/ Denise D. Roberts                                    
|Name:                |  | Denise D. Roberts                                        
|Title:               |  | President                                                
|                     |  | American Express Receivables Financing Corporation IV LLC
|                     |  | (Senior officer in charge of securitization)
Exhibit 35.5

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

American Express Bank, FSB

American Express Credit Account Master Trust

Reporting Period January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011

The undersigned, each a duly
authorized officer of American Express Bank, FSB (AEFSB), a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (TRS), pursuant to the Amended and Restated Supplemental Servicing Agreement, dated
as of March 30, 2010, among TRS, AEFSB, American Express Centurion Bank, American Express Receivables Financing Corporation III LLC, American Express Receivables Financing Corporation IV LLC, and American Express Receivables Financing
Corporation II (the Agreement), does hereby certify that:

1. AEFSB performs certain servicing procedures on behalf of TRS under
the Agreement.

2. The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Certificate.

3. A review of AEFSBs activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

4. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, AEFSB has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout the reporting period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 20thday of March, 2012.



|                           |  |                            
|-------------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB
|                           | 
|By:                        |  | /s/ Denise D. Roberts      
|Name:                      |  | Denise D. Roberts          
|Title:                     |  | Chief Financial Officer    
|                           | 
|By:                        |  | /s/ Paul A. Thompson       
|Name:                      |  | Paul A. Thompson           
|Title:                     |  | Vice President  Controller
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

MICHAEL P. HUERTA, Administrator, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRA TJON, 

Complainant, 

v. 

MIAMI TECH AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE, 

INC. 

Respondent. 

Honorable J .E. Sullivan 

FAA Case No. 2010-S0-190295 

FAADocketNo. FAA-2014-0682 

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 

1\fED 

~ "· .~ 

Respondent, MIAMI TECH AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE, INC, hereby notifies this 

Court that the parties have reached a negotiated resolution of Administrator's claims against 

Respondent in the above referenced matter. The parties will bear its own legal fees and costs, and 

the court retaining jurisdiction solely to enforce the tenns of the settlement. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via 

Certified mail and electronic mail to attorney, William Vines, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

AS0-7, Southern Region, 1701 Columbia Avenue. College Park, GA 30337, on September 25, 

2015, to all parties on the attached service list. 

1 

GRIFFIN, SERRANO & EWING, P A. 

BLACKSTONE BUILDING, SIXni f<LOOR, 707 SOUU.ft,.ASf yto A VENIJE, 

FORTL,L'DERDALE, FLORIDA 33316, TrwYHONE (954) 462-4002, FACSIMILE (954) 462-4009 
William Vines 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

Telephone: (404) 305-5200 

Facsimile: (404) 305-5223 

Miami Tech Aircraft Maintenance, Inc. 

c/o Amasvido Rodriguez 

CEO 

P.O. Box 520657 

Miami, Florida 33152 

Miami Tech Aircraft Maintenance, Inc. 

c/o Amasvido Rodriguez 

CEO 

5200 NW 36th Street, 

Building 862 

Miami, Florida 33166 

GRIFFIN, SERRANO & EWING, P.A. 

Attorneys for RESPONDENT 

Blackstone Building, Sixth Floor 

707 Southeast 3'd Avenue 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 

Phone: (954) 462-4002 

Fax: (954) 462-4009 

Is/ Juan R. Serrano 

Juan R. Serrano 

Florida Bar No. 319510 

Jonathan A. Ewing 

Florida Bar No. 40972 

Service List 

2 

GRIFFIN, SERRANO & EWING, P A. 

BLACK.';TONE BUILDING, SIXTH FLOOR, 707 SO UTI-lEAST 3RD A VF...NUE, 

FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33316, TELEPHONE (954)462·4002, I 'ACS!MILE (954) 462-4009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1417

CLARENCE HANNA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

VA REGIONAL, M of SC; ZIVIA ANN HANNA; SENIOR HELPER, a/k/a Seniors 

Helpers, SC; SAFE CREDIT, SC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:19-cv-02193-MGL)

Submitted: September 9, 2021 Decided: September 13, 2021

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Hanna, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Hanna appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to appoint 

counsel and granting in part his motion to reconsider the dismissal without prejudice of his 

civil case. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See

4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hanna’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the 

district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See

Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important 

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that 

brief.”). Accordingly, we deny Hanna’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm the district 

court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED