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



Exhibit 31.1 OFFICERS CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Allan C. Silber, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Acceris
Communications Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(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 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; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 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: April 12, 2004 By:
    /s/  Allan C. SilberAllan C. SilberChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board of Directors
#### Abdullah Hakim EL-MUMIT a/k/a Thomas Sparks, Jr. v. TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT et al.

No. 86-KH-2491.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 23, 1987.

In re El-Mumit, Abdullah Hakim a/k/a; Sparks, Thomas Jr.; applying for writ of *415certiorari and/or review, writ of mandamus & supervisory writ; Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 48509-A; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CW/86/1253.

Granted and remanded. Sentence is vacated. Case remanded to district court to rule on defendant’s motion for a new trial before imposing sentence. La.Code Crim.P. art. 853; *State v. Randolph,*409 So.2d 554 (La.1982). Trial judge also ordered to rule on defendant’s motion for return of personal property.
#### Bobby G. JONES v. Joyce O. JONES, Individually and as Next Friend of M.C.J., a Minor.

No. 57617.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 29, 1987.

Anita Matthews Stamps, Stamps & Stamps, Jackson, for appellant.

Lisa L. Blount, Jackson, for appellee.

Before ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and SULLIVAN and GRIFFIN, JJ.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Hinds County; Stuart Robinson, Chancellor.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WALKER, C.J., and HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6178
JAMES H. LESTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TRUDY TEEL, PSY.D/TT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-97-840-R) Submitted: March 26, 1998 Decided: April 9, 1998 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James H. Lester, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lester v. Teel , No. CA-97-840-R (W.D. Va. Jan. 28, 1998). 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
#### Mary Elizabeth SOUTHERS, Appellant, v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 87-1442.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 29, 1988.

Rehearing Denied May 18, 1988.

Baron & Budd and Brent M. Rosenthal, Dallas, Louis S. Robles, for appellant.

Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, Tampa and Raymond T. Elligett, Jr., for appellees.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Gonzalez v. Leon,*511 So.2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); *Mercer v. Raine,*443 So.2d 944 (Fla.1983); *Rosaler v. Rosaler,*442 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), pet. for review denied, 451 So.2d 850 (Fla.1984); 3 Fla.Jur.2d Appellate Review § 362 (1978).
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Benton, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton

EL PASO COAL CORPORATION/ COASTAL COAL COMPANY, LLC AND UNDERWRITERS SAFETY & CLAIMS MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0235-04-3 PER CURIAM JUNE 15, 2004 DONALD L. CLARK, SR.

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (John A. Martin; Kari Lou Fra nk; PennStuart, on briefs), for appellants. (D. Allison Mullins; Lee & Phipps, P. C., on brief), for appellee.

El Paso Coal Corporation/Coastal Coal Company, LLC and Underwriters Safety & Claims (hereinafter referred to as “employer”) appeal a decision of th e Workers’ Compensation Commission awarding benefits to Donald L. Clar k, Sr. for permanent part ial disability pursuant to Code § 65.2-504. Employer contends the commi ssion violated its procedural due process rights by awarding benefits to Clark for coal wo rker’s pneumoconiosis based on interpretations of an x-ray taken of his chest on July 31, 2003 at the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH), where the original of that x-ray was unavailable to employer. We have reviewed the record and the commi ssion’s opinion and find no reversible error. We specifically note that the record neither in dicates that employer ever requested that the original NIOSH x-ray be made available to th e three physicians, who were B readers engaged by employer, for examination at ALOSH as provided under 42 C.F.R. § 37.80 (2003), nor

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - establishes that the B readers engaged by employer were ever actually denied access to the original x-ray. Accordingly, we affirm the commission’s fi nding that Moore proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffere d Stage 3 coal worker’s pneumoconiosis, see Clark v. El Paso Coal , VWC File No. 212-63-00 (Dec. 31, 2003), a nd we also affirm the commission’s denial of the employer’s motion for reconsider ation. We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument woul d not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.
### NOTICE OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP

DRAFT 2015 PLAN FOR THE 1997 PM2.5 STANDARD

The District will hold a public workshop to present , discuss, and receive

comments on the draft 2015 PM2.5 Plan , and proposed commitments by the

District to fulfill federal Clean Air Act mandates at 3:00 PM on Wednesday, March 4, 2015. The 2015 PM2.5 Plan will demonstrate attainment of the 1997 federal PM2.5 standard and satisfy Best Available Control M easure and Most Stringent Measure requirements. The proposed commitments wil l include short term and long term commitments for local funding necessary t o fully implement the required incentive-based measures needed for attain ment.

This workshop may be attended in person at the Dist rict’s Fresno office located at 1990 E. Gettysburg Ave, Fresno, CA 93726, via vi deo teleconference at the District’s Modesto office (4800 Enterprise Way, Mod esto, CA 95356) or Bakersfield Office (34946 Flyover Court, Bakersfiel d, CA 93308), or via webcast at http://www.valleyair.org/workshops/public_worksh ops_idx.htm. Documents for this workshop will be available at www.valleyair.org/workshops/public_workshops_idx.ht m. If you are unable to view the documents on-line, a paper copy can be obt ained by calling Ms. Noemi Calderon at (559) 230-6000 or by faxing your reques t to (559) 230-6064. To request Spanish interpreting services, please conta ct Maricela Velasquez at (559) 230-6000 at least 7 days prior to the meeting date. Para solicitar servicios de interpretación en Español, por favor póngase en contacto con Maricela Velasquez al (559) 230-6000 por lo menos 7 días ant es de le fecha de la

reunión.

Written comments should be addressed to Chelsea Gon zales at SJVUAPCD, 1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue, Fresno, CA 93726 or via email at airqualityplans@valleyair.org. Comments will be ac cepted up to and including the date of the public hearing for adoption of the plan on April 16, 2015. However, comments received after 5:00 PM on March 1 3, 2015 will be addressed at the public hearing.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

 

I,Scott M. Colosi, Chief Financial Officer of Texas Roadhouse, Inc.(the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended September 28, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| Date:  November 5, 2010 | By:    | /s/  SCOTT  M. COLOSI |
|------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|
|                         |   |                            |
|                         |   | Scott M.  Colosi           |
|                         |   | Chief  Financial Officer        |

 

1

----
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Cord Blood America, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Matthew L. Schissler, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and 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 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.



|                  |                                                  
|----------------- | -------------------------------------------------
|November 19, 2007 | /s/ Matthew L. Schissler                         
|                  | Matthew L. Schissler                             
|                  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|                  |
#### DORAL TRAVEL, INC., and Alister Hunt, Appellants, v. David E. GERNER, Appellee.

No. 87-695.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 17, 1987.

Stephen J. Finta, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Louise H. McMurray, Beiley & Pevsner, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

*762PER CURIAM.

We remand the cause to the trial court to enable the court to discharge the receiver and to enter appropriate orders concluding the case. We affirm the final judgment. *See Campbell v. Werner,*232 So.2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).

Remanded with directions and affirmed.
#### Patrick Otis CLEMANS, Appellant, v. Sheridan Eileen COLLINS, Appellee.

No. 7893.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

March 23, 1984.

Maryann E. Foley, Lynch, Farney & Crosby, Anchorage, for appellant.

Walter Stillner, Asst. Atty. Gen:, Anchorage, and Norman C. Gorsuch, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before BURKE, C.J., and RABINOW-ITZ, MATTHEWS, COMPTON and MOORE, JJ.

OPINION

MATTHEWS, Justice.

The question presented in this case is whether the trial court erred in refusing to suspend the $1,000 per month child support obligation of the appellant during the six year period appellant is to serve in prison. Appellant’s motion for that relief was denied with the notation by the trial court that “the defendant can use his property and other assets to satisfy his child support obligation.” The record indicates that appellant has a $31,000 pension fund but does not establish whether this fund is currently available as a source of child support payments. No other significant assets of the appellant are shown to exist.

We agree with the following principles:

> Imprisonment and resulting indigency constitute a significant change of circumstances such as to permit a court to modify a support obligation.

*Edmonds v. Edmonds,*53 Or.App. 539, 633 P.2d 4, 5 (1981).

> Where a non-custodial parent is imprisoned for a crime other than nonsupport (or for civil contempt for failure to pay the same) we believe that the better rule should be that the parent is not liable for such payments while incarcerated unless it is affirmatively shown that he or she *1042has income or assets to make such payments.

*Id.*

As noted above, whether appellant has assets from which child support payments can be made is not established in the record before us. We therefore vacate the order denying the motion to modify and remand this case to the superior court with instructions to hold a hearing to determine whether appellant has assets or income which will enable him to meet his current child support obligation, either in whole or in part. Either party should be permitted to submit supplementary evidence. Following the hearing the superior court should make formal findings, *Headlough v. Headlough,*639 P.2d 1010, 1014 (Alaska 1982), and in accordance therewith should either grant or deny the motion to modify. We do not retain jurisdiction of this appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.
**Exhibit
      23.2**





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





C2
      Global
      Technologies Inc.


Toronto,
      Ontario, Canada





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on:
      Form
      S-8 Nos. (333-86761, 333-88881, 333-08483, 333-08477, 333-81646) of C2 Global
      Technologies Inc. of our report dated March 27, 2006, except for the effects
      of
      the discontinued operations discussed in Note 6, as to which date is March
      1,
      2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the financial
      statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K. Our report contains an
      explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s ability to continue as a going
      concern.





BDO
      Seidman, LLP


Houston,
      Texas


March
      16,
      2007
# Dziennik Urzędowy C 123A/16 k

| | ISSN 1977-1002 |
| --- | --- |
| Dziennik Urzędowy
  Unii Europejskiej | C 123A |
| | |
| Wydanie polskie | Informacje i zawiadomienia | Rocznik 6316 kwietnia 2020 |

ISSN 1977-1002

Dziennik Urzędowy

Unii Europejskiej

C 123A

Wydanie polskie

Informacje i zawiadomienia

Rocznik 6316 kwietnia 2020

---

| Spis treści | Strona |
| --- | --- |
| | Sprostowania |
| 2020/C 123 A/01 | Sprostowanie do ogłoszenia o konkursach otwartych – EPSO/AD/375/20 – Prawnicy lingwiści (AD 7) języka duńskiego (DA) – EPSO/AD/376/20 – Prawnicy lingwiści (AD 7) języka greckiego (EL) – EPSO/AD/377/20 – Prawnicy lingwiści (AD 7) języka francuskiego (FR) – EPSO/AD/378/20 – Prawnicy lingwiści (AD 7) języka chorwackiego (HR) – EPSO/AD/379/20 – Prawnicy lingwiści (AD 7) języka polskiego (PL) ( Dz.U. C 72 A z 5.3.2020 ) | 1 |

Spis treści

Strona

Sprostowania

2020/C 123 A/01

Sprostowanie do ogłoszenia o konkursach otwartych – EPSO/AD/375/20 – Prawnicy lingwiści (AD 7) języka duńskiego (DA) – EPSO/AD/376/20 – Prawnicy lingwiści (AD 7) języka greckiego (EL) – EPSO/AD/377/20 – Prawnicy lingwiści (AD 7) języka francuskiego (FR) – EPSO/AD/378/20 – Prawnicy lingwiści (AD 7) języka chorwackiego (HR) – EPSO/AD/379/20 – Prawnicy lingwiści (AD 7) języka polskiego (PL) ( Dz.U. C 72 A z 5.3.2020 )

( Dz.U. C 72 A z 5.3.2020 )

1

---

| PL | |
| --- | --- |

PL

---

Sprostowania

| 16.4.2020 | PL | Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej | CA 123/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2020

PL

Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej

CA 123/1

---

Sprostowanie do ogłoszenia o konkursach otwartych – EPSO/AD/375/20 – Prawnicy lingwiści (AD 7) języka duńskiego (DA) – EPSO/AD/376/20 – Prawnicy lingwiści (AD 7) języka greckiego (EL) – EPSO/AD/377/20 – Prawnicy lingwiści (AD 7) języka francuskiego (FR) – EPSO/AD/378/20 – Prawnicy lingwiści (AD 7) języka chorwackiego (HR) – EPSO/AD/379/20 – Prawnicy lingwiści (AD 7) języka polskiego (PL)

(
  Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej C 72 A z dnia 5 marca 2020 r.
  )

(2020/C 123 A/01)

1. Strona 1:

zamiast:

„Termin składania zgłoszeń: 7 kwietnia 2020 r. o godz. 12.00 (w południe) czasu obowiązującego w Brukseli”,

powinno być:

powinno być:

„Termin składania zgłoszeń: 5 maja 2020 r. o godz. 12.00 (w południe) czasu obowiązującego w Brukseli”.

2. Strona 6:

zamiast:

zamiast:

„Zgłoszenia można składać przez internet na stronie EPSO http://jobs.eu-careers.eu/ do:

7 kwietnia 2020 r. o godz. 12.00 (w południe) czasu obowiązującego w Brukseli”,

powinno być:

powinno być:

„Zgłoszenia można składać przez internet na stronie EPSO http://jobs.eu-careers.eu/ do:

5 maja 2020 r. o godz. 12.00 (w południe) czasu obowiązującego w Brukseli”.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7417
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus REGINALD LAMAR WIDEMON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-75-3-V) Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: June 30, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald Lamar Widemon, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Widemon , No. CR-95-75-3-V (W.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
# L_2006290EN.01001901.xml

| 20.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 290/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 290/19

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1568/2006

of 19 October 2006

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 958/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 of 28 June 2006 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2006/2007 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 of 28 June 2006 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2006/2007 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 19 October 2006, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 19 October 2006, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 19 October 2006, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 shall be 28,558 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 October 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 19 October 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 175, 29.6.2006, p. 49.

2

---