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

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGEACT OF 1934,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Charles Cassel, certify that: 

 
 1.
I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of ConsiliumAcquisition Corp I, Ltd.; 

 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 maintainingdisclosure 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 bedesigned 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 isbeing prepared; 

 
 (b)
[Omitted]; 

 
 (c)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport 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 thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 

 
 5.
The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal 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 overfinancial 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 inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 31, 2022 

 

/s/ Charles Cassel
Charles Cassel
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
**
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before HITESMAN, GASTON, and ATTANASIO Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v.
Carlos A. ZAZUETA Sergeant (E

- 5), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant

No. 201900290

Decided: 21 M ay 2020
Appeal from the United States Navy

- Ma rine Corps Trial Judiciary
Military Judges: John L. Ferriter (arraignment) Jeffrey V. Munoz (trial)

Se ntence adjudged 20 June 2019 by a general court

- martial convened at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona, consisting of a military judge sitting alone

. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confine ment for six months, and a bad

- conduct di scharge.
For Appellant: Lieutenant Daniel O. Moore , JAGC, USN
For Appellee: Br ian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.United States v. Zazueta , NMCCA No. 201900290 O pinion of the Court

2 _________________________

PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of
error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to A ppellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice , 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                     8025415 
<SECURITIES>                               4000745 
<RECEIVABLES>                              1389835 
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (5915)
<INVENTORY>                                1749023 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          15366673 
<PP&E>                                     3028500 
<DEPRECIATION>                            (1640161)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            17030699 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      2770061 
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     11612 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                    119 
<OTHER-SE>                                  298344 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              17030699 
<SALES>                                    7245102 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           8855728 
<CGS>                                      2837037 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             16197042 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (7341314)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (7341314)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (7341314)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.72)
        

</TABLE>
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

334. 
*It now ap 

souse ~111 ao. r 76 iox salary AM will be laufriolont 

axe that the a#wat 83.looatud by 

to yaralt allaanoa 0r uoro the5 oae tlunbrod Isighty 

Dollars (#IO) per year por ttatchar in a00r0ditea 

aoh r0r owmkt 0xgwiaa otdkhar than ealo&w-or 

teaahare, and One tku%Imd i&%ty pollar;: ($ibo) in 

unsoorodlSsd achoold. Pxoia the budgetm l bsltted 

by the schoola, it $0 a~pcrrelit tbtrt the 00&U Of Op 

t5rat1on fmbracaa in tboae 1tdiQll hero %nomB*rmI (66 

0.8. rue1, eta) OVBZ‘ pr0tiou0 yoar0, aad in mnw 

wbt~068 the (I- wh END fnNrFeiuit to 00w 

the awas sham br the bu@rtcl 8ubaittwl. 

*we foe1 pmapted to salt the foll&wZrg questloa: 
~onorablti f?onorablti Q.C. :Lorris, :Lorris, Chairsan, Chairsan, pal".4@4 3 

. . 

that llmltatlon, the State Superintendent may lncresse the 

mximua allowable relmbureermnt ror ourrent ~rpensss other 

than teacherrs salarlea within the amount allooatod by tka 

f;gmture for salary aid durix& the firat year of the blen- 

. 

Yours very truly 

that llmltatlon, the State Superintendent may lncresse the 

mximua allowable relmbureenrsnt ror ourrent ~rpensss other 

than teacherrs salarlea within the saount allooatod by tka 

f;gmture for salary aid durix& the firat year of the blen- 

.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8130]


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

FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL

[Docket No. AS12-06]


Appraisal Subcommittee Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions 
Examination Council

ACTION: Notice of Meeting

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

    Description: In accordance with Section 1104(b) of Title XI of the 
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, 
as amended, notice is hereby given that the Appraisal Subcommittee 
(ASC) will meet in closed session:
    Location: OCC--250 E Street SW., Room 8C, Washington, DC 20219.
    Date: April 11, 2012.
    Time: Immediately following the ASC open session.
    Status: Closed.
    Matters To Be Considered:
    March 14, 2012 minutes--Closed Session.
    Preliminary discussion of State Compliance Reviews.

    Dated: March 30, 2012.
James R. Park,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2012-8130 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

SAM GLASSCOCK III

VICE CHANCELLOR

STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE

34 THE CIRCLE

GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

Date Submitted: November 29, 2023

Date Decided: December 8, 2023

Catherine G. Dearlove, Esquire

Kevin M. Gallagher, Esquire

Matthew W. Murphy, Esquire

Caroline M. McDonough, Esquire

RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.

One Rodney Square

920 North King Street

Wilmington, DE 19801

Karen E. Keller, Esquire

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Esquire

Emily S. DiBenedetto, Esquire

SHAW KELLER LLP

I.M. Pei Building

1105 North Market Street, 12th Floor

Wilmington, DE 19801

Re: NB Alternatives Advisers LLC v. VAT Master Corp.,

C.A. No. 2022-0159-SG

Dear Counsel:

This matter seeks fees and costs in connection with a prior action1in which 

Plaintiffs, NB Alternatives Advisers LLC (as successor-in interest to Almanac 

Realty Investors, LLC), Almanac Realty Securities V, LP, TW-ARS Corp., Matthew 

Kaplan, Moreen R. McGurk (as Executor of the Estate of John McGurk), Justin 

Hakimian, and Randall Guenther, sought injunctive relief to enforce a Delaware 

forum selection clause in an operating agreement. Defendants, VAT Master 

Corporation and VAT Master LP, moved to dismiss or stay this action as unripe, in 

1 NB Alternatives Advisers LLC v. VAT Master Corp., 2021 WL 1998475 (Del. Ch. May 19, 

2021). 
2

light of proceedings in Wisconsin involving another, arguably overlapping,

agreement between the parties with a Wisconsin forum selection clause. I deferred 

a decision on the motion pending the parties’ assistance in evaluating the issues in 

Wisconsin. The Wisconsin appellate court has now entered a decision, clarifying 

what is at stake in the Wisconsin action. I have reviewed the Wisconsin appellate 

decision provided by the parties.

2

I conclude that the ongoing Wisconsin litigation 

is not determinative of the fee-shifting issue before me. Accordingly, I find this

matter is ripe for a decision. Please confer regarding the manner and timing of 

submitting the matter for decision, and contact my assistant to set a scheduling 

conference promptly. 

To the extent the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO 

ORDERED.

Sincerely,

/s/ Sam Glasscock III

Vice Chancellor

2 VAT Master Corp. v. Almanac Realty Sec. V, LP, 2023 WL 5967937 (Wis. App. Sept. 14, 

2023).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

CITY OF BETHLEHEM

v.

ALVIN S. KANOFSKY, UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA

PETITION OF: ALVIN S. KANOFSKY :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 451 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of January, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit  99.3



                            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  of  Lifecell Corporation (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-K  for  the year ended December 31, 2002 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission  (the "Report"), I, Steven T. Sobieski, 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:

     (3)  The  Report  fully  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
          the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

     (4)  The  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents, in all
          material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company
          as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of
          the  Company  for  the  periods  presented.

Dated: March 26, 2003


                                        /s/ Steven Sobieski
                                     --------------------------------------
                                        Steven T. Sobieski
                                        Chief Financial Officer




A  SIGNED  ORIGINAL  OF  THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED  TO  LIFECELL  CORPORATION AND WILL BE RETAINED BY LIFECELL CORPORATION
AND  FURNISHED  TO  THE  SECURITIES  AND  EXCHANGE  COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON
REQUEST.


<PAGE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6774

DANIEL DENNIS COLLINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JUDITH A. SHOWALTER, Administrative Law Judge;

WAYNE HILL, IGO Coordinator for the House of

Corrections-Annex; CORRECTIONAL OFFICIALS OF

M.H.C.-ANNEX; WILLIAM L. SMITH, Warden; CAPTAIN SPAIN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MCMILLION;

L. CURTIS, Property Room; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

JOHNSON; ALL CORRECTION OFFICIALS; MR. HILL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-96-

1273-L)

Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 19, 1996

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Dennis Collins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals 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 deny Appellant's motion to appoint counsel and dismiss as frivolous on the reasoning of the district court. Collins

v. Showalter, No. CA-96-1273-L (D. Md. May 6, 1996). 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
Exhibit 32.2
                            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 of China Unistone Acquisition
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006
(the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I James Preissler, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and

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

By: /s/ James Preissler                                   Dated: August 21, 2006
    -----------------------------------
    James Preissler
    Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
    (Principal Executive and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6741

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GUISEPPE L. WALLACE, a/k/a Big, a/k/a Big Joe,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston,

District Judge. (5:02-cr-00101-1; 5:04-cv-01152)

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 16, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Guiseppe L. Wallace, Appellant Pro Se. John Lanier File, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Guiseppe L. Wallace seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wallace 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 the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
NO. 07-12-00140-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO
PANEL A MAY 22, 2012

LUCAS BERMEA CONSTANCIO, APPELLANT

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY; NO. B-18420-1005; HONORABLE ED WARD LEE SELF, JUDGE

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION On November 1, 2010, appellant, Lucas Bermea Constancio, was convicted of the offense of driving while intoxicated, and sentenced to incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, for a period of fifteen years. On April 12, 2012, appellant filed his notice of appeal with t he trial court. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
To be timely, a notice of appeal must be fi led within thirty days after sentence is imposed or suspended in open court or within ninety days after that date if a motion for new trial is timely filed. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2(a). Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal2 was due on December 1, 2010. Because appellant’s notice of appeal was filed 499 days after it was due, this Court is without jurisdiction over this appeal. See Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). Because this Court is without jurisdiction to address the merits of this appeal , we have no authority to take any action other than to dismiss the appeal. See Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998); Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 523.
By letter dated April 18, 2012, this Court notified appellant t hat it appeared that his notice of appeal was untimely filed and failed to invoke th is Court’s jurisdiction, and directed him to file a response with the Court, by May 18, explaining how this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal. 1 In response, appellant f iled a document entitled “Grounds for Notice of Appeal,” which evinces that appellant’s respons e intends to challenge the merits of his conviction rather than addre ss this Court’s jurisdiction over this appeal.
As such, we now dismiss the purport ed appeal for want of jurisdiction. 2

Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish.

1 This correspondence further not ified appellant that the tr ial court’s certification of defendant’s right of appeal indicates that this case is a plea-bargained case and appellant has no right of appeal. We notifi ed appellant that the appeal is subject to dismissal based on this certification unle ss the Court receives an amended certification providing that appellant has th e right of appeal or other grounds for continuing the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2. We have received no amended certification of defendant’s right of appeal.

2 Appellant may have recourse by filing a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration of an out-of-time appeal. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN . art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2007).
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 of Atlas America Public #14-2004 L.P. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner,
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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Freddie M.
      KotekName:
            Freddie
      M. KotekTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            November
      13, 2008