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


Certifications


I,
David Lichtenstein, certify that:




1.
            I have reviewed this quarterly
      report on Form 10-Q of Lightstone Value Plus Real Estate Investment Trust,
      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 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 most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;




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 the registrant’s board of
      directors:




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.




August
      14, 2009/s/ David LichtensteinDavid
      LichtensteinChairman
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive
Officer)
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 112 

To prohibit the Central Intelligence Agency from using an unmanned aerial 

vehicle to carry out a weapons strike or other deliberately lethal action 

and to transfer the authority to conduct such strikes or lethal action 

to the Department of Defense. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2019 

Mr. BURGESS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and in addition to the Committee 

on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Central Intelligence Agency from using an 

unmanned aerial vehicle to carry out a weapons strike 

or other deliberately lethal action and to transfer the 

authority to conduct such strikes or lethal action to 

the Department of Defense. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 112 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE 

2 AGENCY OPERATION OF UNMANNED AERIAL 

3 VEHICLE STRIKES AND TRANSFER OF AU4 THORITY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. 

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—Notwithstanding any other provi6 sion of law, no officer or employee of, or contractor or 

7 detailee to, the Central Intelligence Agency shall use an 

8 unmanned aerial vehicle to carry out a weapons strike or 

9 other lethal action. 

10 (b) TRANSFER TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.— 

11 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President 

12 shall transfer to the Department of Defense all authority 

13 to use an unmanned aerial vehicle to carry out a weapons 

14 strike or other lethal action. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40916

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MOISES BELMARES-DELGADO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:07-CR-158-1

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Moises Belmares-Delgado (Belmares) pleaded guilty to attempting to enter

the United States unlawfully after previous deportation. Belmares was

sentenced at the bottom of the guidelines imprisonment range to a 57-month

term of imprisonment and to a two-year period of supervised release. Belmares

gave timely notice of his appeal.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 3, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40916

2

Belmares contends that this case should be summarily remanded for

resentencing in light of Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007), and

Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007). Reviewing this contention

for plain error, we find nothing in the record indicating that the district court

felt constrained by this court’s pre-Gall jurisprudence. See United States v.

Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 530 F.3d 381, 387-88 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v.

Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 20,

2008) (No. 08-5988). Instead, the record reflects that the district court imposed

a guidelines sentence because of the need to punish Belmares and to deter him

from future criminal conduct and because the guidelines sentence satisfied the

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 

Belmares contends thatthe district court failed to explain adequately and

justify its sentence in terms of the factors in § 3553(a). Under the circumstances

of this case, the district court’s explanation for imposing a sentence at the

bottom ofthe guidelines range is adequate to satisfy this “court that [the district

judge] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for

exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 127

S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007). 

Belmares argues that his within-guidelines sentence should not be

presumed to be reasonable under United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th

Cir. 2006), because the 16-level enhancement provided by U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is not

“empirically grounded.” We rejected a similar argument in Campos-Maldonado,

531 F.3d at 338-39. The judgment is 

AFFIRMED.
April 16, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

AMAZING AUTO SALES, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00721-CV V.

GABRIEL E. AJAEBU, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on September 2, 2014. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Amazing Auto Sales.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
International Commodity Procurement Division Purchases

FY2019 - Quarter 1

Commodity Qty in MT PO Value Average Cost

BEANS, BLACK BAG-50 KG 410 $290,690.00 $709.00

BEANS, GREAT NORTHERN BAG-50 KG 8,550 $7,636,521.00 $893.16

BEANS, PINTO BAG-50 KG 450 $279,265.50 $620.59

BEANS, SMALL RED BAG-50 KG 960 $811,248.10 $845.05

CORN, YELLOW BAG-50 KG 250 $68,987.50 $275.95

CORNMEAL, SOY-FORT BAG-HP-25 KG 40 $22,548.80 $563.72

CORN-SOY BLEND PLUS BAG-HP-25 KG 6,590 $4,691,698.30 $711.94

CSB SUPER CEREAL PLUS BOX-10/1.5 KG 7,585 $13,880,220.24 $1,829.90

LENTILS BAG-50 KG 1,570 $706,084.40 $449.74

OIL, SOYBEAN, CRUDE, DEGUMMED BULK 32,810 $22,340,720.00 $680.91

OIL, VEGETABLE BOTTLE, PLS-6/4 L 670-719 670 $807,878.22 $1,205.64

OIL, VEGETABLE CAN-6/4 L 20,980 $24,569,202.90 $1,171.06

OIL, VEGETABLE PAIL-20 L 280 $385,836.04 $1,377.91

PEAS, GREEN, SPLIT BAG-50 KG 50 $29,483.00 $589.66

PEAS, YELLOW, SPLIT BAG-50 KG 12,720 $5,457,870.80 $429.08

PEAS, YELLOW, WHOLE BAG-50 KG 1,940 $768,702.30 $396.24

RICE, 2/7 LG, W-MLD BAG-50 KG 3,220 $1,455,656.10 $452.07

RICE, 2/7 LG, W-MLD, FORT BAG-50 KG 400 $210,799.00 $527.00

RICE, 5/20 LG, W-MLD BAG-50 KG 4,550 $1,834,323.50 $403.15

RICE, 5/20 LG, W-MLD, FORT BAG-50 KG 4,310 $1,975,804.50 $458.42

RICE, 5/20 MG, W-MLD BAG-50 KG 1,350 $719,145.00 $532.70

RICE, 5/20 MG, W-MLD, FORT BAG-50 KG 950 $535,002.00 $563.16

SORGHUM BAG-50 KG 7,010 $1,643,214.10 $234.41

SORGHUM BULK 65,690 $12,095,301.30 $184.13

WHEAT, HARD RED WINTER BAG-50 KG 230 $76,590.00 $333.00

WHEAT, HARD RED WINTER BULK 147,130 $33,655,341.90 $228.75

WHEAT, NORTHERN SPRING BULK 17,560 $4,909,424.80 $279.58

WHEAT, SOFT WHITE BAG-50 KG 1,850 $622,175.00 $336.31

Grand Total 350,106 $142,479,734.30 

Commodity Qty in EA PO Value Average Cost

BAGS, WOVEN POLYPROPYLENE- 50 KG 3,989,000 $1,296,394.74 $0.3250
ACCEPTED12-15-00020-CRTWELFTH COURT OF APPEALSTYLER, TEXAS4/6/2015 10:11:28 AMCATHY LUSKCLERK
#### The ALASKA STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. RILEY PLEAS, INC., Respondent.

No. 3150.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Feb. 16, 1977.

Kenneth P. Eggers, Anchorage, for petitioner.

R. Everett Harris, Anchorage, for respondent.

Before BOOCHEVER, C. J., and RABI-NO WITZ, CONNOR and ERWIN, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The single issue presented in this petition for review is whether the Alaska State Housing Authority is included within the definition of the term “State agency” and as such need not post bond under Civil Rule *2662(e)1 in order to stay enforcement of a judgment on appeal. We answered this question affirmatively in *Alaska State Housing Authority*v. *Dixon,*496 P.2d 649, 650 (Alaska 1972), where we stated:

> We conclude that ASHA [Alaska State Housing Authority] is an instrumentality of the state within the Department of Commerce.2

Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED with instructions to quash the writ of execution issued herein by the Clerk of the Superior Court.

BURKE, J., not participating.

1

. Civil Rule 62(e) provides:

> When an appeal is taken or review sought by the state or an officer or agency thereof, and the operation or enforcement of the judgment, order or decision is stayed, no bond, obligation or other security shall be required from the appellant or the petitioner, as the case may be.

2

. *See University of Alaska v. Simpson Building Supply Company,*530 P.2d 1317 (Alaska 1975); *University of Alaska v. National Aircraft Leasing, Ltd.,*536 P.2d 121 (Alaska 1975).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                         473,586
<SECURITIES>                   246,812                 <F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                  523,181
<ALLOWANCES>                   0
<INVENTORY>                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               0
<PP&E>                         13,215,542              <F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 14,111,102
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          361,252
<BONDS>                        646,400                 <F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          0
<PREFERRED>                    0
<COMMON>                       11,551,856              <F4>
<OTHER-SE>                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   0
<SALES>                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               850,906                 <F5>
<CGS>                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  412,245                 <F6>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               20,631                  <F7>
<LOSS-PROVISION>               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                0
<INCOME-TAX>                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            0
<DISCONTINUED>                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                0
<CHANGES>                      0
<NET-INCOME>                   418,030
<EPS-BASIC>                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                  0





<FN>
<F1>   "SECURITIES" REPRESENTS INVESTMENT IN JOINT VENTURE
<F2>   "PP&E" REPRESENTS REAL ESTATE HELD FOR SALE
<F3>   "BONDS" REPRESENTS MINORITY INTEREST IN JOINT VENTURE
<F4>   "COMMON" REPRESENTS NET ASSETS IN LIQUIDATION
<F5>   "TOTAL REVENUES" REPRESENTS RENTAL, INTEREST, AND OTHER
          INCOME
<F6>   "TOTAL COSTS" REPRESENTS TOTAL EXPENSES
<F7>   "OTHER EXPENSES" REPRESENTS MINORITY AND EQUITY INTEREST
           IN JOINT VENTURES' NET INCOME
</FN>


</TABLE>
Formal Recommendation 

From: National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

To: the National Organic Program (NOP)

Date: April 21, 2017

Subject: NOSB Resolution on the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices (OLPP) Rule

NOSB Chair: Tom Chapman

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action: 

Guidance Statement:

Other: X

Statement of the Recommendation: 

Be it resolved by unanimous vote, the National Organic Standards Board—as USDA’s Federal 

Advisory Board on organic issues and representing organic farmers, ranchers, processors, 

retailers and consumers—urges the Secretary to allow the Organic Livestock and Poultry 

Practices rule to become effective on May 19th 2017 without further delay.

See below for full text of resolution

NOSB Vote: 

Motion to accept the resolution on the OLPP Rule

Motion by: Ashley Swaffar 

Seconded by: Harriet Behar

Yes: 15 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0

 

Motion Passed
The National Organic Standards Board recognizes that consumers’ trust of the organic label and 

industry growth depends on the strength and consistent application of the organic regulations. NOSB 

has an integral role in advising USDA in its promulgation of these volunteer standards, and strives to 

seek consensus among organic stakeholders in its recommendations to USDA and the secretary. The 

recently finalized Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices rule was based on a unanimous NOSB 

recommendation to USDA in 2011. The NOSB recommendation was the product of a decade of public 

NOSB meetings, lengthy discussions, public comment periods and consultation from organic 

producers, processors, consumers, and the veterinary and scientific community. According to a 

survey by Organic Egg Farmers of America from 2014, the majority of organic egg producers 

representing the majority of organic egg production already adhere to the practices and standards set 

forth in the rule1

. A recent Consumer Reports survey found that 83% of consumers who frequently 

purchase organic products believe that organic eggs should come from hens that have access to the 

outdoors2. Additionally, USDA APHIS has found no significant differences in mortality rates between 

organic and conventional laying hen operations3. Support for this rule has been expressed through 

public comment by major and growing organic brands4. The rule is supported by organic producers, 

consumers, the industry, and the NOSB. The NOSB stands ready to answer any additional questions 

the Secretary may have on the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices Rule.
Therefore be it resolved by unanimous vote, the 

National Organic Standards Board—as USDA’s Federal 

Advisory Board on organic issues and representing 

organic farmers, ranchers, processors, retailers and 

consumers—urges the Secretary to allow the Organic 

Livestock and Poultry Practices rule to become effective 

on May 19th 2017 without further delay.
Walla Walla Sweet Onion Marketing Committee

Marketing Order No. 956 6601 W. Deschutes Ave., Suite C-2

Term Ending May 31 Kennewick, WA 99336

MANAGER: CHAIRPERSON:

Kim Brunson Michael J. Locati

Phone: (509) 525-1031 Phone: (509) 386-8914

Members Alternates Term Ends

Producers

Position 1 Jose V. Pedroza Arthur Villa 2023

Walla Walla, WA Walla Walla, WA

Position 2 Michael J. Locati Bud Locati 2022

Walla Walla, WA Walla Walla, WA

Position 3 Sarath D. McClure Daniel B. McClure 2023

Walla Walla, WA Walla Walla, WA

Position 4 F. Enriquez, Jr. Fernando Entiquez, Sr. 2022

Walla Walla, WA Walla Walla, WA

Handlers

Position 1 Lucas Hamada Andrew Hamada 2023

Walla Walla, WA Walla Walla, WA

Position 2 Bob Castoldi Nathan Castoldi 2022

Walla Walla, WA Walla Walla, WA

Public

Sterling Allen Casey Waddell 2023

Walla Walla, WA Walla Walla, WA
Thanks for this opportunity, I am the CEO of New West Genetics, we are 

pleased to address the audience regarding the unfolding of national hemp regulations. New West Genetics is a leader in hemp genetics, we are located in Colorado and began our breeding program in 2014. We use modern genomics and traditional breeding to create proprietary, stable, and most importantly compliant hemp seed genetics. New West Genetics is the home of the first US bred AOSCA certified seed in the nation.

 Our main hope for the industry is that we enact regulations that adhere to typical agricultural industry practices, smart, consistent regulation of THC levels, and regulations around validation of end product claims. We believe adopting Colorado’s solution around seed genetics and AOSCA seed certification will be the best path forward. We support the mandate of certified seed only, in concert we recommend consideration of a regulated breeder system, akin to the regulations in Canada. 

 We look forward to the state Departments of Agriculture and Tribal Nations from to adopt consistent regulations in all aspects of the hemp industry pipeline, **especially in regard to THC level testing and validation**.  The state of Colorado has an exemplary protocol for testing THC that we hope will be adopted nationally.  

Furthermore, because hemp planting seed labeling has not yet been regulated, many farmers have been left with fields of seed that have not germinated, and/or failed to performed as described, resulting in significant financial loss.  In the interest of farmers and cultivators knowing what they are buying, we look forward to the enforcement of the Federal Seed Act. Thank you for this opportunity, we are happy to provide any further consultation.

Wendy Mosher

New West Genetics
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 Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, 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 Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                        |  | 
|/s/ Craig O. Morrison   |  |  |  | /s/ William H. Carter  
|Craig O. Morrison       |  |  |  | William H. Carter      
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
|                        |  | 
|March 16, 2006          |  |  |  | March 16, 2006         



A signed original of this statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. and will be retained by Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-22-00063-CV

Ivan DE HOYOS,

Appellant

v.

RTS FINANCIAL,

Appellee

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CVI000309D2

Honorable David E. Garcia, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 13, 2022

DISMISSED

By letter dated January 31, 2022, appellant was instructed to pay the $205.00 filing fee for 

this appeal. Our record contains no evidence that appellant is excused by statute or rule from 

paying the filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20. On March 14, 2022, this court ordered appellant 

to show cause in writing by March 29, 2022, that the filing fee had been paid. Appellant was 

advised that if he failed to respond within the time provided, this appeal would be dismissed for 

failure to pay the filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(c). Appellant did not respond or pay the 

filing fee. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. See id.

PER CURIAM
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Gilbert Burchette, Respondent, v John La Corte, Appellant. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

—Casey, J. P.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed September 15, 1989, which, *inter alia,*ruled that claimant sustained an accidental injury in the course of his employment and awarded workers’ compensation benefits.

After a hearing, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found that an employer-employee relationship existed between John La Corte and claimant, that claimant’s injury occurred during the course of employment, and that La Corte did not have workers’ compensation insurance at the time of the injury. The findings were affirmed by a decision of a panel of the Workers’ Compensation Board, and claimant’s subsequent request for full Board review was denied, resulting in this appeal.

The conflicting evidence at the hearing on the issues of employer-employee relationship and insurance coverage presented questions of fact involving the credibility of witnesses, which were for the Board to resolve *(see, Matter of Di Maria v Ross,*52 NY2d 771). Since there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s decision, it must be affirmed.

Weiss, Mikoll, Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.