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





CERTIFICATION
FOR QUARTERLY REPORTS ON FORM 10-Q





I,
Stephen Akerfeldt, certify that:





1.           I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Firstgold Corp.
(“Registrant”);





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-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and we have:





a)           designed
such disclosure controls and procedures 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;





b)           evaluated
the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a
date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and





c)           presented
in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;





5.           The
Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):





a)           all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the Registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and





b)           any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the Registrant's internal controls; and





6.           The
Registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.




Date:  June
      23, 2008
              
              /s/ Stephen
      AkerfeldtStephen
      Akerfeldt, Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *702Jimmy Smith, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered April 22, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that the court should have suppressed a portion of his statement that followed his invocation of the right to remain silent. We disagree. During the hearing, the defendant never claimed that the police failed to honor his right to remain silent and, therefore, that issue is not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law *(see, People v Mandrachio,*55 NY2d 906, *cert denied 457*US 1122; *People v Clink,*143 AD2d 838). In any event, there is no indication that the defendant ever invoked his right to remain silent *(see, People v Padilla,*133 AD2d 353).

We also agree with the hearing court that the defendant’s arrest did not violate *Payton v New York*(445 US 573), as the police clearly obtained consent from his mother-in-law to enter her house, where the arrest occurred *(see, People v Hixon,*130 AD2d 508; *People v Richards,*119 AD2d 597).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Lewis,*64 NY2d 1111).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.2**
**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ONSCHEDULE**
The Board of Directors and StockholdersBowne and Co., Inc.:
     Under date of February 19, 2003, we reportedon the consolidated balance sheets of Bowne & Co., Inc. andsubsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and therelated consolidated statements of operations,stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the yearsin the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, ascontained in the annual report on Form 10-K for the year2002. In connection with our audits of the aforementionedconsolidated financial statements, we also audited the relatedconsolidated financial statement schedule,Schedule II — Valuation and Qualifying Accounts.This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of theCompany’s management. Our responsibility is to express anopinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audits.
     In our opinion, such financial statementschedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidatedfinancial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in allmaterial respects, the information set forth therein.
     As discussed in Note 7 to the consolidatedfinancial statements, the Company adopted Statement of FinancialAccounting Standards No. 142, *“Goodwill and OtherIntangible Assets,”* in the year ended December 31,2002. As discussed in Note 18 to the consolidated financialstatements, the Company adopted Statement of FinancialAccounting Standards No. 146, *“Accounting for CostsAssociated with Exit or Disposal Activities”* in thefourth quarter of the year ended December 31, 2002.
 KPMG LLP    
New York, New YorkFebruary 19, 2003
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Tricia Gilford v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-15-00025-CR & 01-15-00026-CR

Trial court case number: 13-15952 & 13-15953

Trial court: Criminal District Court of Jefferson County

On March 3, 2015, appellant’s appointed appellate counsel, Thomas J. Burbank, 

filed a motion to withdraw with a brief in each of the above-referenced appeals 

concluding that each appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 

S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).1 

Appellant, acting pro se, has filed a motion requesting a copy of the appellate record for 

her response See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 315, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

We grant the motion and order the trial court clerk, no later than 10 days from 

the date of this order, to provide a copy of the record, including the clerk’s record, the 

reporter’s record, and any supplemental records, to the appellant. The trial court clerk 

shall further certify to this Court, within 15 days of the date of this order, the date upon 

which delivery of the record to the appellant is made. Finally, appellant’s response to her 

appointed counsel’s brief shall be filed within 45 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 

Date: April 16, 2015

 

1

Pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court’s docket equalization powers, these appeals were 

transferred from the Ninth Court of Appeals to this Court on January 8, 2015. See TEX.

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West Supp. 2014); Order Regarding Transfer of Cases 

From Courts of Appeals, Misc. Docket No. 14-9246 (Tex. Dec. 15, 2014).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

          - [F.C.S.C. Meeting and Hearing Notice No. 02-23]

The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR part 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open meetings as follows:

# TIME AND DATE:

Friday, December 1, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. EST.

# PLACE:

This meeting will be held by teleconference. There will be no physical meeting place.

# STATUS:

Open. Members of the public who wish to observe the meeting via teleconference should contact Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Tele: (202) 616-6975, two business days in advance of the meeting. Individuals will be given call-in information upon notice of attendance to the Commission.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

10:00 a.m.—Issuance of Proposed Decisions in claims against Albania.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Requests for information, advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, and requests for teleconference dial-in information may be directed to: Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 441 G St. NW, Room 6234, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6975.

Brian M. Simkin,

Chief Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2023-25810 Filed 11-17-23; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4410-BA-P
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SIX

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

TITLE I

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 2

LEGAL ACTS OF THE UNION, ADOPTION PROCEDURES AND OTHER PROVISIONS

SECTION 2

SECTION 2

PROCEDURES FOR THE ADOPTION OF ACTS AND OTHER PROVISIONS

Article 293

(ex Article 250 TEC)

(ex Article 250 TEC)

1.   Where, pursuant to the Treaties, the Council acts on a proposal from the Commission, it may amend that proposal only by acting unanimously, except in the cases referred to in paragraphs 10 and 13 of Article 294, in Articles 310, 312 and 314 and in the second paragraph of Article 315.

2.   As long as the Council has not acted, the Commission may alter its proposal at any time during the procedures leading to the adoption of a Union act.

---
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3346

___________________________

Laney Harris; Keith Bursey; Fred Bursey

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

City of Texarkana, A Public Body Corporate; N. Wayne Smith, Mayor of City of

Texarkana, Arkansas, Individually and in His Official Capacities; Paul

Hackelman, City of Texarkana, Arkansas Public Work Director, Individually and

in His Official Capacity; Loyd Green; Bubba Green; Bubba Green Towing &

Automotive Center; Nina Walker; Brenda Joyce Green, as Executrix of the Estate

of Loyd Green

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana

____________

 Submitted: April 6, 2015

Filed: April 15, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
Laney Harris, Keith Bursey, and Fred Bursey appeal following the district

court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in their pro se 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and

1

1985 action raising claims arising from the towing and attempted towing of their

vehicles from private property.

Upon careful de novo review, see Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th

Cir. 2014) (review ofsummary judgment); Faibisch v. Univ. of Minn., 304 F.3d 797,

803 (8th Cir. 2002) (review of judgment on pleadings), we conclude that the district

court properly dismissed the federal claims raised in the complaint. Among other

reasons, appellants were not entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing or a court order

before their vehicles could be removed from their properties, after the vehicles had

been deemed abandoned under city ordinances. See Allen v. City of Kinloch, 763

F.2d 335, 336 (8th Cir. 1985). We reject as meritless appellants’ contention that the

district court failed to consider all of their federal claims, and we also conclude that

the court properly acted within its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction

over the pendent state-law claims and dismissing those pendent claims without

prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States DistrictJudge for the Western 1

District of Arkansas.

-2-
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, Alan Gaines, 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: May 12, 2006                     By: /s/ Alan Gaines
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Alan Gaines, Chief Executive Officer
                                            ABC Funding, Inc.
```

                                                                    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 Wireless Telecom Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic
Report"), I, Paul Genova, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

                                          /s/ Paul Genova
                                          ---------------
                                          Paul Genova
                                          President, Chief Financial Officer
                                          November 10, 2006

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
```
#### In the Matter of Russell Abbondandolo, Appellant, v Daniel Lishansky et al., Respondents.

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the determination of the Nassau County Police Academy dated July 28, 1989, which dismissed the petitioner as a probationary recruit, the petitioner appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), entered October 23, 1989, which dismissed the petition, and (2) an order of the same court, dated December 8, 1989, which denied his application for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents, appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The appeal from the order is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for reargument. The petitioner offered no new evidence warranting treatment of the motion as one in the nature of renewal.

As a probationary employee of the City of Glen Cove Police Department, the petitioner was assigned to train at the Nassau County Police Academy, and could be dismissed from the Academy at any time, without a hearing and without specific reasons being stated. In the absence of bad faith or reasons prohibited by law, such a determination will be upheld *(see, Matter of Leon v Meehan,*67 NY2d 613; *Matter of LaMotta v New York City Tr. Auth.,*165 AD2d 875). "The burden of presenting legal and competent evidence to show a deprivation of petitioner’s rights or bad faith or other arbitrary action constituting abuse of * * * discretion must be borne by petitioner” *(Haberman v Codd,*48 AD2d 505, 508). Here, the petitioner has failed to sustain his burden. Furthermore, the petitioner was not an employee of Nassau County, but of the City of Glen Cove Police Department. Any obligation owed the petitioner by the Nassau County Police Academy can only arise from the Academy’s agreement with the City of Glen Cove Police Department to train its officers. Certainly, the Academy’s obligation to the petitioner can be no more than that of the petitioner’s employer.

We have examined the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

At January 31, 2009, consolidated, wholly-owned subsidiaries of Cascade
Corporation were as follows:



|                                                   |  |                          
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                                 |  | Place of Incorporation   
|Cascade Xiamen Forklift Truck Attachment Co., Ltd. |  | Peoples Republic of China
|Jiahai (Hebei) Forks Co., Ltd.                     |  | Peoples Republic of China
|Cascade Hebei Forks Co., Ltd.                      |  | Peoples Republic of China
|Cascade (Africa) Pty. Ltd.                         |  | South Africa             
|Cascade Korea Limited                              |  | South Korea              
|Cascade (U.K.) Limited                             |  | United Kingdom           
|Cascade NV                                         |  | The Netherlands          
|Cascade (Scandinavia) Hydraulik A.B.               |  | Sweden                   
|Cascade Hispania S.A.                              |  | Spain                    
|Cascade (France) S.A.R.L.                          |  | France                   
|Cascade France MHP, S.A.R.L.                       |  | France                   
|Cascade GmbH                                       |  | Germany                  
|Cascade (Japan) Limited                            |  | United States            
|Cascade (Canada) Ltd.                              |  | Canada                   
|Cascade Kenhar Ltd.                                |  | United Kingdom           
|Cascade Italia S.r.l.                              |  | Italy                    
|Hyco-Cascade Ltd. (N.Z.)                           |  | New Zealand              
|Cascade (Australia) Pty. Ltd.                      |  | Australia                
|Cascade IFSC Ltd.                                  |  | Ireland                  
|PSM, LLC                                           |  | United States            
|American Compaction Equipment, Inc.                |  | United States            

The names of certain subsidiaries have been omitted because when considered in the aggregate as a
single subsidiary they would not, as of January 31, 2009, constitute a Significant Subisidiary as defined in Rule 1-02(w) of Regulation S-X.