alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Peter R. Huntsman, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of HMP Equity Holdings Corporation for the three months ended June 30, 2004;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this annual 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 have:



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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



|Date: August 16, 2004 |  |                                                              
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  | /s/PETER R. HUNTSMANPeter R. Huntsman Chief Executive Officer

---



QuickLinks
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-12-00690-CR

SARAH SALAZAR

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 11-CR-0909-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 14, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
(THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10K
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATMENTS.)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                      0000849101                        
<NAME>                              Apple South, Inc.         
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000             
       

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         Dec-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                            Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              Dec-29-1996
<CASH>                                          3,923
<SECURITIES>                                       52
<RECEIVABLES>                                   4,568
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                     6,143
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               24,687
<PP&E>                                        380,523
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                457,827
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          40,181
<BONDS>                                       215,891
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          391
<OTHER-SE>                                    191,038
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  457,827
<SALES>                                       546,022
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              546,022
<CGS>                                         150,090
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 460,397
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             11,417
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                18,224
<INCOME-TAX>                                    6,550
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            11,674 
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   11,674
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        

</TABLE>
#### Samuel RIVERA, a/k/a Tony El Enfermo, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-650.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 21, 1988.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Harold Mendelow and Leonard F. Baer, Sp. Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Mark S. Dunn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before HUBBART, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery and sentenced thereon to life imprisonment and a term of 134 years on the respective convictions. We affirm the convictions. *See Oregon v. Elstad,*470 U.S. 298, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985). However, as the State concedes, the sentence of 134 years of imprisonment for armed robbery, which departs from the recommended guideline sentence, is not supported by valid reasons. Accordingly, this sentence is reversed with directions to impose a sentence on the armed robbery conviction within the range of the recommended guideline.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
#### Thomas PADGETT and Mary Hartline Padgett, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Appellee.

Nos. 88-1845, 88-1846.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 1, 1989.

Lawrence J. Sementó of Lawrence J. Sementó, P.A., Eustis, for appellant Thomas Padgett.

Mark A. Nacke of Merritt and Watson, P.A., Eustis, for appellant Mary Hartline Padgett.

Linda K. Harris, Dist. Ill Legal Counsel, for appellee.

COBB, Judge.

W.L.P., the minor child herein at issue, was taken from his parents immediately after his birth in December, 1985, through an HRS dependency proceeding. He has since remained in foster care. The final order of permanent commitment was entered in August, 1988; it is the subject of this appeal.

At the termination hearing, clear and convincing evidence was presented that W.L.P. would be subject to abuse and neglect if left with his natural parents, who had been guilty of these offenses with *other*children. There was no such evidence that the parents had ever been guilty of such abuse or neglect1 directed against *1318W.L.P. since they never had physical custody of him.

The clear legal issue in this case, then, is the viability of the concept of “prospective” abuse and/or neglect, a concept which we noted in *Spankie v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services,*505 So.2d 1357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), *review denied,*513 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1987), and which was adopted in *In the Interest of J.L.P.,*416 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). *See also, In the Interest of W.D.N.,*443 So.2d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The dissent in *Spankie*contended that such “prospective” misconduct is speculative and, therefore, legally insufficient to support a judgment severing parental rights.

In accordance with *J.L.P.*and *W.D.N.,*we affirm the instant judgment, and certify the question of “prospective” abuse, neglect or abandonment under Chapter 39 to be one of great public importance pursuant to Article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.

. HRS argues that the parents’ noncompliance with all of the terms of a performance agreement, as subjectively evaluated by HRS, equates with neglect under section 39.464(3), Florida Statutes (1987). We cannot accept this argument because of its constitutional infirmities, as explained in *In the Interest of R. W.,*495 So.2d 133 (Fla.1986) and *In the Interest of R. W.,*481 So.2d 548 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). *See also, Santo-*
        *1318
        *sky v. Kramer,*455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982).
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION III 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 

Mr. David K. Paylor, Director 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

629 East Main Street 

Richmond, Virginia 23218 

Dear Mr. Paylor: 

DEC - 11011 

On August 30,2011, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to 

the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality pertaining to new source review permitting to address national ambient air quality 

standards for particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers. EPA has determined that the 

submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Direct 

Final Rulemaking Notice (DFRN) action. 

Ifmembers of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Mr. Dave Talley, 

Office of Permits and Air Toxics, at (215) 814-2117. He is the principal contact for this 

rulemaking. 

Sincerely, 

j)i~'Q~ Diana Esher, Director 

Air Protection Division 

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7702]


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

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

[Docket No. SSA-2012-0018]


Reinstate Index to Chapter III in 20 CFR

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Social Security Administration published a document in the 
Federal Register of March 27, 2012, about reinstating an Index to 
Chapter III in Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The 
document contains a misprinted Web site link.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Sussman, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Regulations, 6401 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 965-1767. For information on 
eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 
1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, 
Social Security Online, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov.

 Correction

    In the Federal Register of March 27, 2012, in FR Doc. 2012-7182, on 
page 18290, in the third column, correct the second paragraph under 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION to read:
    You may also find a listing of Acquiescence Rulings on our Web site 
at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/rulings/rulfind1.html.

    Dated: March 27, 2012.
Martin Sussman,
Senior Advisor for Regulations, SSA.
[FR Doc. 2012-7702 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P
**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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months period
        ended June 30, 2007 of the Claymore MACROshares Oil Down Tradeable Trust
        (the
        " **Registrant** "),
        as
        filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
        " **Quarterly**  **Report** "),
        I,
        Samuel Masucci, III, principal executive officer of MACRO Securities Depositor,
        LLC, which acts as the depositor for the Registrant (the " **Depositor** "),
        certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1.
              The
                  Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly represents,
                  in all
                  material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
                  of the
                  Registrant.
 
 
 Date:
        August 14, 2007
 /s/ Samuel
                  Masucci, III

                  
                  Samuel
                    Masucci, III
                  On
                    behalf of the Registrant
                  and
                    as Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Larry Darnell HALL.

No. 87-K-2585.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re Hall, Larry Darnell; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 19119-KA; Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 130510.

Denied.
U s e o f c o m b i ned cyc l e f o r pea k i ng s e r

v i c e f o r PPEC S t e v e H ill t

o: G e r a r do R i o s
, Roge r K ohn 03 / 16 / 2012 09 : 28 AM

C c: D a v e J en k i n s
, " g r

c hand l e r @ ape x po w

e r g r oup

. c om "

, C r

a i g K ebodeau x
, " M c K i n s e y
, J ohn A ."

, G a r y R uben s t

e in

H i s t o r y: T h i s m e ss age ha s been f o r w a r ded.

A s r e qu e s t e d b y E P A

, PP E C i s p r

o v i d i n g t h e a tt a c h e d l e tt e r fr o m K i ew i t P o we r
, w h i c h p r o v i d e s a

c o m p ar i s o n b e t wee n PP E C

’ s p r o p o s e d t u r b i n e

c o n f i g u ra t i o n a nd a

c o m b i n e d c

y c l e fa c ili t y o f c o m p ara b l e

c a p a c i t y

. T h i s l e tt

e r i s p r o v i d e d as a n a dd i t i o n

t o t h e r e c o r d s upp o r t i n g PP E C

’ s P S D p e r m i t a pp li c

a t i o n.

P l e as e l e t m e k n o

w i f y o u h av e a n y qu e s

t i o n s.

S t e v e Hill K i e w

i t P o w e r

- Mr G e r

a r do R i o s

- 3

- 16

- 2012 r

e P i o P i c o E ne r

g y C en t e r

. pdf
#### STATE of Louisiana In the Interest of Howard RUDOLPH, III and Alan Rudolph.

No. 87-CK-1119.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 12, 1987.

In re Rudolph, Linda — Other; Rudolph, Howard — Other; applying for writ of cer-tiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CJ86 1440; Parish of East Baton Rouge, Family Court of E. Baton Rouge, Div. “B”, No. 58499.

Prior report: La.App., 506 So.2d 706.

Denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6976

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FREDRICK LAMAR SMITH, a/k/a Red Fred,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Spartanburg. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (7:03-cr-01094-BHH-2; 7:16-cv-02563-

BHH)

Submitted: February 22, 2018 Decided: February 26, 2018

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fredrick Lamar Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jeanne Howard, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Fredrick Lamar Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate 

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, 

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that 

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Each of the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, of Grande Communications, Inc., hereby certifies that, on the date hereof:



|1. | The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Grande Communications Holdings, Inc. for the six months ending June 30, 2004 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Grande Communications Holdings, Inc.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                           
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date August 13, 2004 |  | /s/ William E. Morrow                     
|                     |  | William E. Morrow Chief Executive Officer 
|                     | 
|Date August 13, 2004 |  | /s/ Michael L. Wilfley                    
|                     |  | Michael L. Wilfley Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. This certification
shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act except to the extent this Exhibit 32 is expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.
Exhibit
10.1








AMENDMENT
NO. 2


TO


PURCHASE
AND LICENSE AGREEMENT


BETWEEN


GRANDE
COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS, INC.


AND


NORTEL
NETWORKS INC.








This
Amendment No. 2 to the Purchase and License Agreement is made effective as of
December 31, 2008 (the “Amendment No. 2 Effective Date”) by and between Nortel
Networks Inc. (“Nortel”) and Grande Communications Networks, Inc.
(“Customer”).





WHEREAS,
Customer and Nortel entered into a Purchase and License Agreement dated January
24, 2005, for the sale, licensing, and purchase of Nortel’s Products and
Services (“Agreement”) and amended the Agreement on January 24, 2008;
and





WHEREAS,
Customer and Nortel now wish to, among other things, amend the Agreement to
provide for reinstatement and extension of the Term.





NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, Customer
and Nortel hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:





1.  The
capitalized terms in this Amendment shall have the same meaning as the defined
terms in the Agreement.





2.  The
parties hereby agree and acknowledge that the Agreement is reinstated as of
the


Amendment
No. 2 Effective Date. The parties further agree that all purchases made between
December 31, 2008 and the date of execution of this Amendment shall be deemed to
have been purchased pursuant to the terms and conditions of the
Agreement.  Customer hereby ratifies and affirms all the terms and
conditions in the Agreement and agrees to be bound by all such terms and
conditions.





3.  The
Term described in the preamble to the Agreement shall be amended to read as
follows:





“..., and continuing until December 31,
2009 (“Term”).”





4. All
other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect, except as modified above, with respect to purchases made after the
Amendment No. 2 Effective Date.





5.  The
terms of this Amendment No. 2 shall supercede all oral or prior written
statements concerning the subject matter of this Amendment.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 2 to be
executed by their duly authorized representatives.





GRANDE
      COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS, INC.
            
            NORTEL
      NETWORKS INC.By:
            
            
            By:Title:
            VP Network Operations and
      Engineering
            
            Title:
            VP, US RegionsDate:
            4/2/2009
            
            Date:
            4/3/2009
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ecolocap Solutions Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Tri Vu Truong, Chief Executive 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:

|(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   
|    | Dated this 14th day of August, 2008.                                                                                                                 
|   

TRI VU TRUONG 
                                                                                                                       Tri Vu TruongChief Executive Officer

---
#### Alvin SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-2495.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 17, 1988.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and John T. Kilcrease Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Kim W. Munch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

HALL, Judge.

Alvin Smith appeals from his judgment for burglary of a structure. He contends that the judgment erroneously reflects that he was convicted of a second-degree felony. We agree.

The appellant was charged with burglary of a business, which is a third-degree felony. § 810.02(3), Fla.Stat. (1981). Accordingly, we remand this cause for correction of the appellant’s judgment to reflect that the appellant was convicted of a third-degree felony.

Affirmed but remanded with directions consistent herewith.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
#### Jimmy Dale HOWELL and Don W. Howell v. MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.

No. 57641.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 16, 1988.

Dexter C. Nettles, Jr., Smith & Smith, Carthage, for appellant.

A.R. Wright, Jr., Morris C. Phillips, Jr., Wright & Phillips, Carthage, for appellee.

Appeal from Special Court of Eminent Domain Court, Leake County; Marcus D. Gordon, Judge.

Before HAWKINS, P.J., and ROBERTSON and SULLIVAN, JJ.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PRATHER, ANDERSON, GRIFFIN and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur.