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



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO  RULES 13A-15(E) AND 15D-15(E) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of Birmingham Bloomfield Bancshares, 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuer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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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.
    
    [Reserved];c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer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 small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most
recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: December 27, 2005/s/ Robert E. FarrRobert E. FarrChief Executive Officer
 20
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. JOHN GERINGER,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 10155

D.C. No. 5:12

- cr
- 00888

- EJD

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 4, 2020 * *

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. John Geringer appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the

140

- month sentence imposed on remand for resentenc ing following his guilty

- plea conviction for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 ; mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 ; and securities fraud, in

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 10155

violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78ff , and 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b

- 5 and
240.10b5

- 2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Geringer contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
address his non

- frivolous , mitigating arguments and to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia

Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none.
The record reflects the district court considered Geringer’s mitigating arguments
and the relevant section 3553(a) factors and explained its reasons for imposing a
within

- Guidelines sentence, including the natu re of the offense and the need to afford adequate deterrence. See United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 99 1

- 9 2 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Perez

- Perez , 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008) (sentencing judge need not expressly address every sentencing argument). Geringer also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable

. The
district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United Sta tes , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) factors and totality of the circumstances, including the seriousness of the offense and the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities

. See Gall , 55 2 U.S. at 5 1.

AFFIRMED.
#### BISCAYNE AWNING & SHADE COMPANY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. WEST KENDALL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 87-492.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 8, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 2, 1987.

*704Lazan, Trute, Moss, Robbins & Howard and Melvyn Trute, Surfside, for appellant.

Stephen E. Nagin and Howard Green, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Peacock Const. Co. v. Modem Air Conditioning, Inc.,*353 So.2d 840 (Fla.1977).
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned, Terry W. Shaver, Chief Executive Officer of Abatix Corp. (the “Company”), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”).  

The undersigned certifies 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 operation of the Company.  

|   |   | /s/ Terry W. Shaver                   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                       |
|   |   | Terry W. Shaver                       |
|   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | March 26, 2007                        |

----
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 13 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

SAMUEL J. WILDER,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 98-5120
v. (N.D. Oklahoma) SALVATION ARMY, sued as: The Salvation Army (dormitory supervisor Buddy Campbell) - Buddy Campbell,

Defendant - Appellee. (D.C. No. 97-CV-93-B)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON , McKAY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

This case is before us on Samuel Wilder’s motion fo r leave to proceed without prepayment of costs or fees in order to app eal the dismissal of his action against the Salvation Army and others in which he a lleges that his civil rights were violated because the defendant defamed him, wi thheld some personal effects, and violated the RICO statute. This matte r has been before us once before without success in Appeal No. 97-5227. In addition to the claims referred to above, Mr. Wi lder claims various errors with respect to his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), failure to appoint counsel, failure to consolidate with anothe r action, failure to stay the proceedings, failure to permit discovery, and so on

. Substantially for the reasons set forth in the orde rs of the district court filed March 24, 1998, and June 12, 1998, and based upon o ur own review of the file, we conclude that this action and appeal are frivolo us. Accordingly, Mr. Wilder’s motion to proceed in forma pauperisis denied, all pending motions are denied, and this appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall is sue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge
#### STATE ex rel. Herman GILLIAM v. Charles C. FOTI, et al.

No. 87-KH-0891.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1988.

In re Gilliam, Herman; applying for remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 309-446.

Denied.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2319 

To reduce temporarily the duty on parts of microwave ovens for the industrial 

preparation or manufacture of dried vegetable snack (small portions 

of food usually eaten other than at meal times) items. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on parts of microwave ovens 

for the industrial preparation or manufacture of dried 

vegetable snack (small portions of food usually eaten 

other than at meal times) items. 

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


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2319 IS

1 SECTION 1. PARTS OF MICROWAVE OVENS FOR THE INDUS2 TRIAL PREPARATION OR MANUFACTURE OF 

3 DRIED VEGETABLE SNACK (SMALL PORTIONS 

4 OF FOOD USUALLY EATEN OTHER THAN AT 

5 MEAL TIMES) ITEMS. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Parts of microwave ovens for 

the industrial preparation or 

manufacture of dried vegetable snack (small portions of 

food usually eaten other than 

at meal times) items (provided for in subheading 

8514.90.40) ........................... 2.0% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

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

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

13 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Federal Aviation

Administration

Presented to:

By:

Date:

Federal Aviation

Administration

Part 23 

Reorganization

Overview

EASA

Aircraft Certification Service(AIR)

June 10, 2015
Federal Aviation

Administration

• The FAA can not share drafts of rulemaking 

documents or any supporting/guidance materials 

after the rulemaking action plan (RAP) is approved. 

• The FAA can brief another aviation authority on any 

significant changes to a rulemaking to support 

harmonization efforts.

• If the FAA engages in any communication with 

another aviation authority after RAP approval, and 

receives significant information and argument on 

the merits of the rule, the FAA will provide a written 

summary of those communications in the 

rulemaking docket. 
Federal Aviation

Administration

History of Part 23 Reorganization

• 2009- Part 23 certification process study (CPS)

• 2011 - FAA established an ARC based on CPS

• Included participants from foreign / domestic avionics manufacturers and 

industry groups, and multiple Civil Aviation Authorities 

• ARC recommendations received May 2012:

• Increase ability to adopt new technology

• Revise CFRs into safety/performance based requirements 

• Move more prescriptive means of compliance into internationally accepted 

industry standards 

• Incorporate CS-VLA as the entry level Part 23 airplane to encourage 

manufacturers to move from LSA and Experimental into Part 23. 

• 2013 –Statutory requirement to issue a final rule based 

on Part 23 ARC recommendations by 12/31/2015

• Rulemaking application approved in September 2013

• Rulemaking Action Plan (RAP) approved in December 2014

3
Federal Aviation

Administration

EASA CS-23 

Rulemaking

Part 23 Reorganization – What Are We Doing?

Part 23 

Rulemaking

Industry Standard Development - ASTM

Foreign Authorities 

• Transport Canada

• Brazil CAA

• Chinese CAA

• New Zealand CAA
Federal Aviation

Administration

Part 23 Status- Schedule 

• Current: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

under development.

• December 2015: Anticipated publication of NPRM

• December 2017: Anticipated publication of Final Rule
Federal Aviation

Administration

Part 23 Status Updates / Changes

• Since approval of the RAP, and the reg text that was 

presented at the ASTM meeting in XXX, the following 

changes have been made:

•Removed prescriptive details in the following 

subparts:

• Subpart D — Design and Construction

• Subpart E — Powerplant

• Minor wording changes to ensure legal sufficiency

• For example: removed minimize and appropriate 

• No change to intent 
Federal Aviation

Administration

CS-23 A-NPA

• General agreement with the philosophy expressed 

in the A-NPA 

• Specific comments:

• Subpart E – concerns that this section is still too 

prescriptive (e.g., CS 23.500 Powerplant installation 

specifications)

• Subpart F – concerns with adding former guidance into 

the rule language (e.g., CS 23.605 System and equipment 

failure specifications).
Federal Aviation

Administration

Back-up Slides
Federal Aviation

Administration

Safety Continuum
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Appellate case name: In the Interest of N.I.W., A Child

Appellate case number: 01-18-00576-CV

Trial court case number: 2016-03594J

Trial court: 315th District Court of Harris County

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the termination of 

the parent-child relationship is at issue (“parental termination case”). The appellate records 

were completed in this case after the clerk’s record was filed on July 17, 2018, which set 

appellant’s brief due to be filed within 20 days, or by August 6, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.6(a)(2). On August 3, 2018, appellant’s appointed counsel, Elizabeth M. Bruman, filed 

an unopposed motion for a first extension of time to file the appellant’s brief, requesting a 

twenty-one day extension until August 27, 2018.

Appeals in parental termination cases are to be brought to final disposition within 

180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed, so far as reasonably possible. See TEX.

ST. JUD. ADMIN. R. 6.2(a) (West 2016). The notice of appeal in this case was timely filed 

on June 26, 2018, in the trial court from the June 21, 2018 decree for termination, by 

counsel for the appellant, L.I.B., mother of the child, N.I.W., setting the 180-day 

compliance deadline for December 21, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b). Although this 

is appellant’s counsel’s first extension request and is unopposed, the accelerated schedule 

in parental termination cases requires greater compliance with briefing deadlines and 

greater scrutiny of extension requests. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4(b)(2) (stating that 

record extension requests in parental termination cases may be granted by appellate court, 

but must not exceed 30 days cumulatively, absent extraordinary circumstances).

Appellant’s counsel contends that an extension is needed because she needs 

additional time because she has been busy preparing for trials and other work commitments 

in other cases, in addition to a preplanned vacation, which has prevented her from 

completing the brief on time. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b)(1)(C), 38.6(d).
Accordingly, the appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file appellant’s brief 

is GRANTED until August 27, 2018, but no further extensions will be granted absent 

extraordinary circumstances. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: August 16, 2018
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DEBBIE GADASH,

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

____________________ 

2011-7103 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in Case No. 09-0331, Judge Alan G. 

Lance, Sr. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

KENNETH M. CARPENTER, Carpenter, Chartered, of 

Topeka, Kansas, argued for claimant-appellant. 

DAWN E. GOODMAN, Attorney, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondentappellee. With her on the brief were TONY WEST, 

Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, 

Director, and FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR., Assistant Director. 
Of counsel on the brief were DAVID J. BARRANS, Deputy 

Assistant General Counsel, and TRACEY P. WARREN, 

Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 

of Washington, DC. 

_____________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

March 13, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
#### Jeffrey ROWAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-0347.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 20, 1988.

*474Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the sentence imposed by the trial court for failure to enter a written order supporting the guideline departure. *See State v. Boynton,*478 So.2d 351 (Fla.1985), ce*rt. denied,*475 U.S. 1029, 106 S.Ct. 1232, 89 L.Ed.2d 341 (1986).

GLICKSTEIN, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.
# L_2006355EN.01009001.xml

| 15.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 355/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 355/90

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1853/2006

of 14 December 2006

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/2006 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/2006 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 8 to 14 December 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 15 December 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 December 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 172, 24.6.2006, p. 6.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,892,327
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  210,814
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,103,141
<PP&E>                                       4,998,320
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,254,092
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,392,891
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          289,245
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,103,646
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,392,891
<SALES>                                      6,324,748
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,764,079
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,518,335
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                245,744
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            245,744
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   245,744
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     8.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     8.18
        

</TABLE>