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

              Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
            Securities and Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)
                             as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Steven Barrenechea, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ABC Funding,
Inc.

      2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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
quarterly report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

      4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and 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 quarterly report is being prepared;
and

            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

      5. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 weakness in the design
or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data; 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.


Dated: November 12, 2007         By: /s/ Steven Barrenechea
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Steven Barrenechea, Chief Executive Officer
                                     ABC Funding, Inc.


                                       21
Michael S- Sadler "7 5 Ix]2, "OU

Coffield Unit

2661 Fm 2054

Tennessee Colony,Tx. 75884

Abel Acosta

Court of Criminal Appeals-Clerk

P.O Box 12308

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711 ^«"' w*UHflWIN&.APPEALS

Re: Tr-Ct-No-CR141Q4-C-BCCR

WR-75,812-04

March 31, 2015

** 0*2015

^$cos?a,Clerk

Dear Clerk,

Mr- Acosta, I am writing you today to inquire about my

11-07, which was filed with the CCA on March 19, 2015- My question,

-relates to -'the -material you r-ecei-tfed from- the-~-220th_ District:—

Court Clerk.

I filed my Habeas in the Trial Court on January 14, 2014-

My application consisted of fifteen grounds of error; accom

panied by a (50) page memorandum of law- After the State responded;

I then submitted a (10) page adverse response. My final filing

in the Trial Court, was a "Letter to the Court" that I submitted

as my Sx parte communication with the CourtOkay, now my first question is: did you receive everything

I filed? (1) my application in its entirety;(2)the 50 page memo

randum of law in support of my app-; the 10 page adverse response

that I submitted;and finally, the "Letter to the Court" I ;had

written to both the District Judge, and the Justices of the

Court of Criminal Appeals?

I just want to be assured that everything I filed pertaining

to the instant writ has been forwarded to you- I understand,

according to the 220th District Court Clerk, that the visiting

Judge never showed up to view my writ or hold a hearing; so

I am assuming that she never read my "Letter to the Court",which

you undoubtedly received sealed- If so,^I want to know if the

Justices will see and read the letter? I sincerely apologize

for the hassle, but this is my life, and I've learned not to

trust the 220th District Court. Will you please contact'-.'• me

and let me know if you in deed have received everything I filed;

LETTER TO CCA CLERK PAGE,1
>

and if the Justices intend to take it upon themselves to read

my "Letter to the Court"? This would truly mean alot to me,

and will alleviate alot of stress and worry on my behalf. I know

that my writ is under review, and just want the satisfaction

and assurance that I have done my best and all I can do; and that

nothing is being held backI would like to thank you for your time in~ this matter.

And I look forward to hearing from you soon. Have a good daybincere ly' tfuAdPol. ct^cli^

cc: file

@wolfcounsel

LETTER TO CCA CLERK PAGE,2
No. WR-62,099-03

IN THE

COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS

FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

In re Robert Lynn Pruett,

Petitioner,

vs.

William Stephens,

Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Correctional Institutions Division

Respondent.

_________________________________

NOTICE REGARDING STATE’S RESPONSE TO

PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

_________________________________

CAPITAL CASE

MR. PRUETT IS SCHEDULED TO BE EXECUTED ON APRIL 28, 2015.

_________________________________

David R. Dow

Texas Bar No. 06064900

ddow@central.uh.edu

University of Houston Law Center

100 Law Center

Houston, Texas 77204-6060

TEL: (713) 743-2171

FAX: (713) 743-2131

WR-62,099-03

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 4/8/2015 12:55:52 PM

Accepted 4/8/2015 1:12:29 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

 RECEIVED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 4/8/2015 ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK 
No. WR-62,099-03

IN THE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

In re Robert Lynn Pruett,

Petitioner,

vs.

William Stephens,

Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Correctional Institutions Division

Respondent.

_________________________________

NOTICE REGARDING STATE’S RESPONSE TO

PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

_________________________________

Pruett’s petition states that no physical evidence connects Pruett to the 

crime. Petition at 7. In its response, the SPU states that Officer Nagle’s blood was 

found in the gym. State’s Response at 15. In fact, that assertion is untrue. The 

pants and towel found in the gym area contained Pruett’s blood, not Nagle’s blood. 

Trial Tr. vol. 42: 346-47, 350. None of Officer Nagle’s blood was found in the 

gym, nor was any found on any item belonging to Mr. Pruett. 
2

Respectfully Submitted,

s/ David R. Dow

__________________________

David R. Dow

Texas Bar No. 06064900

University of Houston Law Center

100 Law Center

Houston, Texas 77204-6060

Tel. (713) 743-2171

Fax (713) 743-2131

Counsel for Robert Pruett
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 8th day of April 2015, a true and correct copy of the 

above legal document was delivered via email to: 

Jefferson Clendenin

Assistant Attorney General

Criminal Appeals Division

Texas Bar No. 24059589

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

Tel. (512) 936-1600

Fax (512) 320-8132

Email jay.clendenin@texasattorneygeneral.gov

Melinda Fletcher

Special Prosecution Unit

mfletcher@sputexas.org

s/ David R. Dow

_________________________

David R. Dow
Order entered April 8, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00404-CV

ROBERT T. O’DONNELL, Appellant

V.

JULIA L. VARGO, Appellee

On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-86-15027

ORDER

On September 29, 2014, Michelle May O’Neil, lead counsel for appellant, Robert T. 

O’Donnell, filed a brief on appellant’s behalf. On March 31, 2015, O’Neil filed a verified 

motion to withdraw as appellant’s counsel stating as grounds that she is unable to effectively 

communicate with her client in a manner consistent with good attorney-client relations and that 

appellant has failed to meet the terms and conditions of the engagement contract between 

appellant and counsel’s firm, Godwin Lewis P.C. O’Neil states in her motion to withdraw that 

she sent appellant a copy of the motion, including a list of all deadlines and settings in the 

appeal, pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.5(a)(3) & (b) and informed appellant 

of his right to object to the motion pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.5(a)(4). As 

of the date of this Order, April 8, 2015, appellant has not responded to O’Neil’s motion or 
advised the Court that he has obtained substitute counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(a)(4), (d). 

Accordingly, we GRANT O’Neil’s motion and ORDER that Michelle May O’Neil is 

WITHDRAWN as appellant’s counsel in this appeal. We DIRECT Michelle May O’Neil to 

comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c).

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
No. 14-1189	 State of West Virginia ex Rel. J.C., a Minor, by and Through His 

Mother and Next Friend, Michelle C. v. The Honorable James P. 

Mazzone, Lead Presiding Judge, Zoloft Litigation, Mass Litigation 

Panel; Pfizer, Inc., Roerig, a Division of Pfizer, Inc.; and Greenstone, 

LLC f/k/a Greenstone, Ltd. 

FILED 

April 10, 2015
 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

Davis, J., dissenting: 

In this case, the majority opinion refuses to grant the writ of prohibition sought 

by the plaintiff families to prevent enforcement of the Mass Litigation Panel’s order granting 

the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims of twenty plaintiff families on the ground of 

forum non conveniens. I dissent because I believe a motion to dismiss based upon forum non 

conveniens filed two years after litigation was begun simply is not timely as required by 

W. Va. Code § 56-1-1a(a) (2006) (Repl. Vol. 2012). 

The litigation of the instant matter has taken a long and tortured route that has 

included two attempts by the defendants to remove the case to federal court and a prior 

petition to this Court. There also was an earlier motion to dismiss a New York plaintiff 

family based upon forum non conveniens filed in 2012 in the circuit court of Wayne County. 

That motion was denied. A motion to dismiss based upon forum non conviens should 

typically be filed early in the course of litigation. Indeed, the Legislature has declared that 

such a motion 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

is timely if it is filed either concurrently or prior to the filing of 

either a motion pursuant to Rule twelve of the West Virginia 

Rules of Civil Procedure or a responsive pleading to the first 

complaint that gives rise to the grounds for such a motion: 

Provided, That a court may, for good cause shown, extend the 

period for the filing of such a motion. 

W. Va. Code § 56-1-1a (b). There has been no showing of good cause to extend the period 

for filing the motion in the instant matter. The factors relied upon by the defendants to 

support their motion were obvious from the time the complaints were filed. Under these 

circumstances, the defendants motion should have been refused as untimely.1 For this 

reason, I respectfully dissent. I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Workman joins me 

in this dissent. 

1

I understand that the Mass Litigation Panel entered a case management order 

that included a deadline for Rule 12 motions to dismiss, and the plaintiffs failed to raise an 

objection to that order. While the better course would have been for the plaintiffs to 

challenge the case management order, under the particular facts presented in this matter, I 

would find that the order failed to establish good cause for extending the time for the motion 

at issue herein. 

2
**
**Exhibit 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES**

 
   **Subsidiary**  **Jurisdiction of Organization**1.  AE Côte-Nord Canada Bioenergy Inc.  Canada2.  Bridger Aerospace Australia Pty Ltd  Australia3.  Bridger Aerospace Defense Services, LLC  Montana4.  Bridger Aerospace Group Holdings, LLC  Delaware5.  Bridger Aerospace Group, LLC  Delaware6.  Bridger Aerospace, LLC  Montana7.  Bridger Air Tanker, LLC  Montana8.  Bridger Air Tanker 1, LLC  Montana9.  Bridger Air Tanker 2, LLC  Montana10.  Bridger Air Tanker 3, LLC  Montana11.  Bridger Air Tanker 4, LLC  Montana12.  Bridger Air Tanker 5, LLC  Montana13.  Bridger Air Tanker 6, LLC  Montana14.  Bridger Air Tanker 7, LLC  Montana15.  Bridger Air Tanker 8, LLC  Montana16.  Bridger Aviation Repair, LLC  Montana17.  Bridger Aviation Services, LLC  Delaware18.  Bridger Ground Support, LLC  Montana19.  Bridger Merger Corp.  Cayman Islands20.  Bridger Solutions International, LLC  Montana21.  Bridger Solutions International 1, LLC  Montana22.  Bridger Solutions International 2, LLC  Montana23.  Bridger Tanker, LLC  Montana24.  BTOF (Grannus Feeder) – NQ L.P.  Delaware25.  Ensyn BioEnergy Canada, Inc.  Canada26.  Firetrac.com, LLC  Montana27.  Mountain Air, LLC (d/b/a Bridger Aerospace)  Arkansas28.  Northern Fire Management Services, LLC  Montana29.  Whitepeak BioEnergy, LLC  Delaware30.  Wildfire GP Sub IV, LLC  Delaware**
# The lnvestigatve Process I Gathering information I 

# Observation I Memory 

# Mr. Holmes to Dr. Watson “You have seen but not observed.” To Observe: “To see or sense, especiafly through directed careful analytic attention;

to come to realize or know especially through consideration

of noted facts.” Webster’s New College Dictior,isry.



# 1Observation

I Carl it be taught? N Is it like common sense? i Can existing skills be enhanced? I How? I TIP: Look at the Big Picture: I Plan ahead I Learn through experience I Know what the message

is What affects observation? I Sight I Sound I.TouchISmell___________ I Taste I Intuition Other influences Religion Gender Personality Style Health Culture Perceptions lAge

I I Location

I I Family

I I Life Experiences

I I Education

&

I Training

i I

2

# What e’se? I AbiBtyto I register the information I store the information I recall the information stored 

# Me I Our senses register the information— I Our brain sorts
it out- what do we wantto keep and for how long? I Long term memory I Short temi memory 

# How do we remember? I Sensory memory I Olfactory I Tactile I Kinesthetic I Verbal I Emotional



# 1 Learning 

# style I Auditory- what you hear; tone, language, etc. Visual- what you see; layout; det3ils of a picture; etc. I Kinesthetic— active participation I Multi-sensory— more than one style



# 3Why don’t welearn? I Information doesn’t register I Not focused I Interference I Clues are different How canweenhance our observation/memory?

I Plan I Interest I Understand I Confidence I Pay attention I Rehearse/Practice

4.
% Residential exposure, 30 days, daily shower, 10% dissipation daily % Getting peak chlorpyrifos concentration at 60 pg/g in blood on the first day % 2h/day, 8h/day, or 16h/day exposures % February 3, 2016 % Cecilia Tan

% Setting model parameters use human_parameters_MRP use preg_female_parameters BWSW=1; %Set BW to a fixed value BWST=75; %Set BW to 75 kg PREG=0; % Not pregnant DZONE = 1; % KDIS = 0.1; %10% daily dissipation TSTOP=1000; %Simulation time in hours

% Dermal exposure SAF= 0.5; % Fraction of skin in contact with chlorpyrifos. FAD=1; % Fraction of dose available to be absorbed. Values of <1 could be used if pesticide is encapsulated. %DERM = 3.6; % dose in ug/kg for 16 h/day exposure DERM = 3.7; % dose in ug/kg for 8 h/day exposure %DERM = 6.2; % dose in ug/kg for 2 h/day exposure D3=7; %DAYS/WEEK %P2=16; %HRS/DAY P2 = 8; %hours/day %P2=2; S2=0 ;%OFFSET FROM 0 START TIME (EG IF YOU WANT TO MODEL FROM MIDNIGHT, BUT DOSE AT 8 AM) W2=30; %30 day exposure

prepare @clear@all start @NoCallback simall = [_time _rbcce _urinetcpy _cv*350.6*1000 _cvo*334.5*1000]; %conc unit = pg/g

save simall @file='residential_firstday_02032016_8h_30day' @format=ascii
Exhibit 32.1

              Certification Of Chief Executive Officer 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 ABC Funding, Inc. (the "Company") for
the quarter ended May 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Alan Gaines, as Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Richard Cohen, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge,
respectively, that:

      1.    The Report fully complies with 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.


Dated: May 12, 2006                   By: /s/ Alan Gaines
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Alan Gaines, Chief Executive Officer
                                          ABC Funding, Inc.


Dated: May 12, 2006                   By: /s/ Richard Cohen
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Richard Cohen, Chief Financial Officer
                                          ABC Funding, Inc.
#### Theodore E. MORRIS, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-78-676.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 12, 1980.

D. C. Thomas and C. Merle Gile, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Danny K. Shadid, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BRETT, Judge:

Theodore E. Morris, Jr., was convicted of Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug, Cocaine, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF-78-1053. A summary of the facts is unnecessary since the only issue that requires discussion pertains to the issuance of a search warrant.

When officers seek a search warrant based on information from a confidential informant, it is required that they be able to say *when*the informant obtained his information. *Warthen v. State,*Okl.Cr., 557 P.2d 466 (1976). As this Court noted in *Warthen,*facts which would establish probable cause at one point in time may not be enough to establish probable cause at some other time.

*253The affidavit in the present case does not contain this essential fact.1 It states that the informant “had been inside the residence and had observed marihuana in a large plastic trash bag,” but it does not say when. The State argues that there are two factors which would support an inference that the informant’s observations were recent enough to support the issuance of a warrant: The officer alleges that the marihuana is “now located” at the residence in question, and the affiant states that he has had the house under surveillance and has seen behavior that he believes to be associated with narcotics trafficking. These factors will not support the desired conclusion, however. The affiant does not say when he saw the narcotics traffic behavior; and the informant’s use of the word “now” does not imply that he was in the house within any specific time frame. The word is too vague to support such a conclusion. There is still no hint of when the informant was in the house. Therefore, the affidavit is constitutionally insufficient.

The State argues in the alternative that the question of the search warrant is moot because the cocaine was discovered in a search incident to a lawful arrest. This argument is not valid. The whole chain of events hinges on the search warrant. If the warrant had not been issued, the officers would not have been in the appellant’s house, and none of the subsequent events would have occurred.

The judgment and sentence is, therefore, *REVERSED*and the case is *REMANDED*to the District Court.

CORNISH, P. J., concurs.

BUSSEY, J., dissents.

1

. Of course, the review of a magistrate’s actions must be based on the facts that were before him or her at the time and not on facts which later come to light. But the facts of this case serve to illustrate the need for the magistrate to know when the observations were made. The affidavit alleged that there was a large plastic trash bag of marihuana “now” at the specified house; but when the officers served the warrant they found no trash bag. There were one and one-half “lids” of marihuana and a miniscule amount of cocaine in the appellant’s pocket.
From: Llenza, Charles

Sent: Sat May 01 00:27:47 2010

Subject: DOE Announces a Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Public Meeting, May 

18, 2010

The Department will hold an informal public meeting as a first step in the 

standards rulemaking process for commercial refrigeration equipment. This meeting 

is the starting point for the standards-development process and familiarizes 

interested stakeholders with the approach and analytical tools that the DOE 

anticipates using. The meeting highlights issues on which DOE requests feedback 

from interested parties on the assumptions, methodology, and analytical tools the 

DOE proposes to use. In addition, the Department requests data and information 

that DOE should consider in its analysis of commercial refrigeration equipment. 

Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Public Meeting Information: 

DATE: May 18, 2010 TIME: 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EST 

LOCATION:

U.S. Department of Energy

Forrestal Building

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Room 8E-089

Washington, DC 20585 

For more information please click on the framework document on the Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment Public Meeting page: 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/refrig_equip_

mtg_2010.html 

Regards, 

Charles Llenza

Project Manager/Engineer

US Department of Energy

(202)586-2192(work) 

(202)287-1590(fax)Charles.Llenza@ee.doe.gov

 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

*********************************************************************************

**********

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE ISCONFIDENTIAL 

INFORMATION INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMESABOVE. IF THE 

READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR ANEMPLOYEE OR AGENT 

RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE TO THEINTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU 

ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION OR COPYING OFTHIS COMMUNICATION IS 

STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS NON-PUBLICPERSONAL INFORMATION 

ABOUT ANY CONSUMER OR CUSTOMER OF THE SENDER OR INTENDEDRECIPIENT, YOU ARE 

FURTHER PROHIBITED UNDER PENALTY OF LAW FROM USING ORDISCLOSING THE INFORMATION 

TO ANY THIRD PARTY BY PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERALGRAMM-LEACH-BAILEY ACT. IF YOU 

HAVE RECEIVED THIS FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONICMESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY 

NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN ORDESTROY THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO ASSURE THAT 

IT IS NOT READ, COPIED, ORDISTRIBUTED BY OTHERS.

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 1.2.002