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

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Paul E. Clayton, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Jamba, 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 necessaryto 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 allmaterial 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)) and internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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 consolidatedsubsidiaries, 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 endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred 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 isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. Theregistrant’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(or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation 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’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: April 2, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 474 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 474

   To prohibit the importation for sale of foreign-made flags of the 
                       United States of America.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 2011

  Mr. Boren introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the importation for sale of foreign-made flags of the 
                       United States of America.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Genuine American Flag Act''.

SEC. 2. IMPORTATION FOR SALE OF FOREIGN-MADE AMERICAN FLAGS PROHIBITED.

    Beginning 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, no 
flag of the United States of America (regardless of size and whether or 
not in compliance with the standard proportions prescribed by Executive 
order) that is the product or manufacture of any foreign country or 
instrumentality may be imported for sale into the United States.
                                 <all>
```
#### JESKUS v. STATE.

No. 26547.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 4, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

William H. Scott, Crim. Dist. Atty., King C. Haynies, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., Houston, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of theft of personal property of over the value of Fifty Dollars, and his punishment was assessed at two’ years in the penitentiary.

Robert A. Brotherton testified that on November 1, 1952, he parked his delivery truck in front of a cafe in Houston and went into the cafe; that he had two cases of whiskey in his truck — one case of Old Hickory and one case of Seagrams. He further testified that within a short time after he entered the cafe he saw appellant take one of the cases of whiskey out of his truck and place it in his (appellant’s) truck; that at that time he saw another case of whiskey in appellant’s truck. Then appellant drove away. He further testified that when he got outside both cases of whiskey were gone from his truck. This witness further testified that he had the care, control and management of- this whiskey and did not give appellant his consent to take the whiskey.

Oran Hockaday testified that he knew the market value of whiskey in Harris County, and that on November 1, 1952, a case of Old Hickory whiskey and a case of Sea-grams whiskey were each of the value of more than Fifty Dollars.

The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction.

There are no formal bills of exception. In three informal bills of exception, appellant complains of the testimony of Robert A. Brotherton wherein he testified that *410the two cases alleged to have been taken from his truck were whiskey, on the ground that he did not know of his own knowledge that they contained whiskey.

iAfter the witness testified that the cases contained whiskey, he made the above objection which was overruled. If appellant desired to' preserve his objection, he should have asked leave of the court to examine the witness as to the basis of his knowledge, then moved the court to strike the testimony complained of, and reserved his exception upon the failure of the court to do so. This not being done, appellant cannot now complain. Jamar v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 91, 150 S.W.2d 1031.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Exhibit 10.16


                               EXTENSION AGREEMENT

         This Agreement is entered into as of August 1, 2001, by and among
Global Capital Securities Corporation ("GCAP"), a Colorado corporation, and
Sutton Online, Inc. ("Sutton Online"), a Delaware corporation.

         WHEREAS, GCAP and Sutton Online, Inc. have entered into an agreement
dated March 23, 2001 whereby Sutton, Inc. operates as a franchisee of GCAP for
the purpose of operating a branch office of GCAP (the "Franchise Agreement"), a
copy of which is attached hereto; and

         WHEREAS, GCAP has entered into an agreement to sell a controlling
interest in Sutton Online to Siegel, his affiliates and/or designees; and

         WHEREAS GCAP and Sutton Online desire to enter into this Agreement to
modify the Franchise Agreement;

         THEREFORE, upon receipt of good and valuable consideration, the parties
agree as follows:

         1.       Paragraph 12.1 of the Franchise Agreement shall be amended to
read as follows:

                  12.1     This Agreement shall become effective as of the date
first appearing herein and will continue in effect for a period of one(1) year
unless sooner terminated as provided in this agreement. Franchisee shall have
the right to extend this Agreement for an additional six (6) months by providing
written notice of such intent to extend 60 days prior to the end of the one-year
term. In the event that this Agreement is extended for such six-month term, GCAP
shall be entitled to receive as compensation under this Agreement the greater of
$20,000 per month or the compensation as would be payable under the Franchise
Agreement as written.

         2.       In all other respects, the Franchise Agreement shall remain in
force as written.


                                          GLOBAL CAPITAL SECURITIES CORPORATION



                                          By: /s/ MARTIN SUMICHRAST
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Martin Sumichrast


                                          SUTTON ONLINE, INC.


                                          By: /s/ JONATHAN D. SIEGEL
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Jonathan D. Siegel