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



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                          ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE

                             AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL
                         RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC.

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

                  AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT ACCOUNT MASTER TRUST

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


     The  undersigned,  a duly  authorized  representative  of American  Express
Travel Related  Services  Company,  Inc., as Servicer  ("TRS"),  pursuant to the
Pooling and  Servicing  Agreement,  dated as of May 16, 1996,  as amended by the
First  Amendment to the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement,  dated as of March 30,
2001,  (as  amended and  supplemented,  the  "Agreement"),  by and among TRS, as
Servicer,  American  Express  Centurion  Bank, a Utah banking  institution,  and
American Express Receivables Financing  Corporation II, each as Transferor,  and
The Bank of New York,  as trustee (the  "Trustee"),  does hereby  certify to the
best of his knowledge after reasonable investigation that:

1.   TRS  is  as  of  the  date   hereof  the   Servicer  under  the  Agreement.
Capitalized  terms used in this Certificate  have their respective  meanings set
forth in the Agreement.

2.   The  undersigned  is  duly authorized  pursuant to the Agreement to execute
and deliver this Certificate to the Trustee.

3.   A  review  of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar year ended
December 31, 2001 and of its performance under the Agreement was conducted under
my supervision.

4.   Based  on  such  review,  the  Servicer  has, to the best of my  knowledge,
performed  in  all  material   respects  its  obligations  under  the  Agreement
throughout  such  calendar  year  and no  default  in the  performance  of  such
obligations  has  occurred or is  continuing  except as set forth in paragraph 5
below.

5.   The  following  is  a description of each Default in the performance of the
Servicer's obligations under the provisions of the Agreement known to me to have
been made by the  Servicer  during the  calendar  year ended  December 31, 2000,
which sets in detail (i) the nature of each such default,  (ii) the action taken
by the  Servicer,  if any,  to remedy each such  default,  and (iii) the current
status of each such default: NONE.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this
21st day of March, 2002.

                                        AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED
                                        SERVICES COMPANY, INC., as Servicer

                                        By: /s/ Lawrence Belmonte
                                           -------------------------------
                                           Name:   Lawrence Belmonte
                                           Title:  Vice President
                                                   CSBS - Forecast & Planning
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 2242** 

STARSHA SEWELL , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. ( 8:12

- cv - 02402

- DKC )

Submitted : February 24, 2014 Decided: March 10, 2014

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie A. Lewis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Starsha Sewell appeals the district court ’ s order denying, for want of jurisdiction, her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order remanding this action to state court . We have reviewed the record and fi nd no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sewell v. Prince George’s Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. , No. 8:12

- cv - 02402

- DKC (D. Md. Oct. 1, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal co ntentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

In connection with the report of RazorResources Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending January 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,Bing Wong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Sect 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sect 1350), that to my 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. 

 

/s/ Bing Wong                                  

Bing Wong, 

Chief Executive Officer

Dated: March 3, 2006
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Antonio RUIZ, Appellee.

No. 4-86-1254.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 11, 1987.

Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Lee Rosenthal, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In our opinion the trial court erroneously granted the defendant’s motion to suppress. The evidence (cocaine) should have been received under the inevitable discovery doctrine. *State v. LeCroy,*435 So.2d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), *cert. denied,*473 U.S. 907, 105 S.Ct. 3532, 87 L.Ed.2d 656 (1985). “If the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered ... then the evidence should be received.” *Nix v. Williams,*467 U.S. 431, 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2509, 81 L.Ed.2d 377, 387 (1984). In order to apply this doctrine, there does not have to be an absolute certainty of discovery, but rather, just a reasonable probability. *United States v. Brookins,*614 F.2d 1037 (5th Cir.1980).

Here it appears that the trial court, in rejecting the inevitable discovery doctrine, improperly required the absolute certainty test rather than the reasonable probability finding.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DOWNEY, LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Kam Shah, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of WebTradex International 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 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 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 quarterly 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 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 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.





Date: August 16, 2010


/s/ Kam Shah


Kam Shah


Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6904

EDWARD K. NELSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE

AND PARDON SERVICES; JANE DOE, an unknown

Parole Officer; JOHN DOE, Parole Officer; JIM

MCCLAIN, Interstate Parole Officer; ALICE

CHIAPORRI, Parole Officer,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-00-1349-19BD)

Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 29, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward K. Nelson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

May 23, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered

on the docket sheet on May 24, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and

79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that

the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Edward Nelson appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge reveals this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we

affirm on the district court’s reasoning that federal courts cannot

issue writs of mandamus to compel action by state officials or

agencies. See Nelson v. South Carolina Dep’t of Probation, No. CA00-1349-19BD (D.S.C. May 24, 2000);* see also Gurley v. Superior

Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2311 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on Trimethylolpropane Oxetane. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. VOINOVICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on 

Trimethylolpropane Oxetane. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TRIMETHYLOLPROPANE OXETANE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.03 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Trimethylolpropane Oxetane) is amended by striking the 

7 date in the effective column period and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

8 2011’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2311 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 3703

_____________________________
J OHN W ESLEY M ONTGOMERY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. J. Scott Duncan , Judge

. April 15, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , B ILBREY , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

John Wesley Montgomery, pro se
, Appellant.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
<PAGE>

NORTH AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC, INC.                                 Exhibit 11.1
CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE



                                                  YEAR ENDED     YEAR ENDED
                                                 OCT. 31, 1997  OCT. 31, 1996

PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE
--------------------------

Common shares outstanding at beginning of year     2,983,201      2,983,201

Exercise of stock options and warrants and
 issuance of shares                                  152,875

Common stock equivalents, net of treasury
 stock purchase                                      390,867              -
                                                  ----------     ----------

Weighted average number of shares outstanding      3,526,943      2,983,201
                                                  ==========     ==========

Net income                                        $  276,200     $  413,100

Net income per share                              $     0.08     $     0.14
                                                  ==========     ==========


The fully dilutive effect of common equivalent shares on the calculation of 
fully diluted earnings per share for the years ended October 31, 1997 and 
1996 was not material.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6187

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DORIS FOSTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00013-MR-DLH-7)

Submitted: July 26, 2018 Decided: October 2, 2018

Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Doris Denise Foster, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Doris Denise Foster appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for 

reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error.∗

 Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Foster, No. 1:09-cr-00013-MR-DLH-7 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 24, 2018). 

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

 ∗ We note that the district court’s finding of fact on the range of cocaine base 

Foster possessed (“between 1.5 and 4.5 kilos,” E.R. 811), straddles two categories of base 

offense levels under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. If the relevant amount of 

cocaine base fell under 2.8 kilograms, Foster may be eligible for a further reduction in 

her sentence. See USSG app. C, amend. 782. Foster, however, did not raise the issue in 

the court below, and so we do not consider it here.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
T0HE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MIDWEST EXPRESS HOLDINGS, INC. AS OF AND
FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          22,623
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,910
<ALLOWANCES>                                       261
<INVENTORY>                                      3,570
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,465
<PP&E>                                         145,140
<DEPRECIATION>                                  65,627
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 141,882
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,131
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            96
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   141,882
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               163,264
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  148,284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,599
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,770
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,829
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,829
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03
        

</TABLE>
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2157 

To suspend temporarily the duty on alkylated melamine formaldehyde resin; 

melamine, formaldehyde polymer, methylated, butylated. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on alkylated melamine 

formaldehyde resin; melamine, formaldehyde polymer, 

methylated, butylated. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ALKYLATED MELAMINE FORMALDEHYDE 

4 RESIN; MELAMINE, FORMALDEHYDE POLY5 MER, METHYLATED, BUTYLATED. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2157 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Alkylated melamine formaldehyde resin; melamine, formaldehyde polymer, 

methylated, butylated (CAS 

No. 68036–97–5) (provided 

for in subheading 

3909.20.00) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of Investors Financial Services Corp. on Form S-8 of our report
dated February 20, 2004, November 12, 2004 as to Note 23 (which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the restatement described in
Note 23 and to the Company's adoption, effective January 1, 2001, of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133, "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities," effective January 1, 2002, and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets" and effective October 1, 2003, FASB
Interpretation No. 46, "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, an interpretation of Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51"), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10K/A of
Investors Financial Services Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2003, and to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in the Prospectus, which is part of this Registration Statement.

DELOITTE &
TOUCHE LLP

Boston,
Massachusetts
November 15, 2004

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Vodavi  Technology,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  for the year ended  December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory
K.  Roeper,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

(2)  The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ GREGORY K. ROEPER
-----------------------------
Gregory K. Roeper
Chief Executive Officer
March 24, 2003
#### UNITED STATES of America, v. Rodney SMITH, Appellant.

No. 02-2343.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 7, 2003.

Decided April 17, 2003.

Before: ALITO, FUENTES, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Defendant, Rodney Smith, pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute more than 100 grams of crack cocaine, heroin, PCP, and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the District Court found the defendant’s base offense level at 26 and a criminal history at category III. The District Court imposed a sentence of 88 months imprisonment, five years of supervised release and a $100.00 special assessment. This timely appeal followed.

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) and Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 109.2(a), defendant’s counsel certifies that, based on her review of the record, she “can find no non-frivolous issues for appeal.” After engaging in an independent review of the record, *see United States v. Youla,*241 F.3d 296, 299-300 (3d Cir.2001), we agree and therefore affirm the District Court’s judgment of commitment and sentence. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.