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

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Bernt O. Bodal, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of American Seafoods Group LLC;

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 annual 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 most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrants internal control over financial reporting; 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 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 controls over financial reporting.



|                     |  |     |  |                                                                                
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 10, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/    BERNT
O. BODAL                                                          
|                     |  |     |  | Bernt O. Bodal Chairman and Chief Executive Officer American Seafoods Group LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO WAO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

vs.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO:

WA:20-CV-00454-ADA

ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY DISCOVERY HEARING

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is set for

DISCOVERY HEARING by Zoomoom on Thursday, October 07, 2021 at 01:30 PM.

set

IT 6th day of October, 2021.

Alan D Albright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 97 Filed 10/06/21 Page 1 of 1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

ROXANNE OLIVAN ROSALES,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

ANDREW SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY;

 Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

SA-20-CV-00543-DAE

ORDER

Before the court in the above-styled cause of action is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis [#1]. This case was automatically referred to the undersigned upon filing, and 

the undersigned has authority to enter this order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Plaintiff 

seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) based on an inability to afford court fees and 

costs. Having considered Plaintiff’s application and supporting affidavit, the Court is of the 

opinion the motion should be granted. 

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United 

States, except an application for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350, as well as 

an administrative fee.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP includes 

income and asset information, which indicates that Plaintiff is unemployed but her spouse 

generates approximately $1,916.00 per month through his work as a landscaper. Plaintiff 

estimates her monthly expenses as $2,235.00. Plaintiff does not have any savings or other source 

1 The administrative fee, which is currently $50, is waived for plaintiffs who are granted 

IFP status. See District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, available at

http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/district-court-miscellaneous-fee-schedule.

Case 5:20-cv-00543-DAE-ESC Document 2 Filed 05/05/20 Page 1 of 2
2

of income. This information demonstrates that Plaintiff does not have sufficient monthly 

resources available to pay the filing fee, and the Court will grant the motion to proceed IFP. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis [#1] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [#1-1] shall be filed by the 

Clerk without prepayment of fees, costs or the giving of security, and the Clerk shall, until 

further Order of this Court, waive the collection of any other fees or costs from Plaintiff. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk issue the summonses attached to Plaintiff’s 

motion [#1-4, #1-5, #1-6]. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 5th day of May, 2020.

ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00543-DAE-ESC Document 2 Filed 05/05/20 Page 2 of 2
#### Pennsylvania Exchange Bank, Plaintiff, v. Max Lasko, Doing Business as 125th Street Ferry Auto Sales Company, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

January 8, 1958.

*Irving G. Schleimer*for plaintiff.

*Gordon I. Novod*for defendant.

Matthew M. Levy, J.

Contrary to hope and expectation (when I signed the order to show cause requesting reargument) the parties have given me no decisional aid. The operative facts are these:

Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed on defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Costs were required to be paid by plaintiff to defendant for leave to replead. Plaintiff *385did not appeal, but served an amended complaint, paying the costs imposed. The second complaint was dismissed for insufficiency on defendant’s motion; This time plaintiff appealed. The second order was reversed, with costs to plaintiff. In the opinion of the Appellate Division (4 A D 2d 206) it seems to be indicated by way of obiter that the first complaint was good. Defendant paid plaintiff the costs of appeal and plaintiff now seeks (by way of reargument of the first motion) to recover back the costs paid by it for leave to replead.

The application for reargument is denied, for several reasons.

(1) Plaintiff paid nothing by the second order of dismissal. There is nothing to restore by virtue of that second order, which order plaintiff did not accept. Payment was made by virtue of the first order, which plaintiff did accept. If plaintiff believed itself aggrieved, proper procedure required it to appeal from the original disposition instead of electing to serve an amended complaint.

(2) The motion sought to be reargued has been rendered academic by reason of plaintiff’s election to serve an amended complaint. Reargument should not be granted merely to recover back costs conditionally imposed and paid by the unsuccessful party for leave to overcome the main effect of the decision.

(3) It is my view, too, that if the costs paid by plaintiff as a condition for repleading were to be *ipso facto*recoverable back by it on the basis of a definitive disagreement by the Appellate Division with the first decision at nisi prius, they would have been included in the costs assessed by the Appellate Division on reversal.

An order of denial has been signed and entered accordingly.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-14-00372-CR

____________________

IN RE BRETT W. LIGON, 

MONTGOMERY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

_______________________________________________________ ______________

Original Proceeding

________________________________________________________ _____________

ORDER 

Brett W. Ligon, the Montgomery County District Attorney, filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus. The relator is prosecuting Cause No. 14-05-05257-CR, The State of Texas 

v. Michael Burl Massengill. Relator seeks a writ compelling the Honorable Kelly W. 

Case, Judge of the 9th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, to vacate his 

discovery order signed on August 29, 2014. We note our jurisdiction over this matter and 

the parties. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004). 

Relator alleges that prejudice will result if discovery occurs before the issues 

raised in the petition for writ of mandamus can be resolved.
2

The Court finds temporary relief is necessary to prevent undue prejudice. It is 

ORDERED that the trial court’s order of August 29, 2014 in Cause No. 14-05-05257-CR

is STAYED until our Opinion issues or until further order of this Court. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 52.10(b). No bond is required of the relator as a condition to any relief herein 

granted.

TEMPORARY RELIEF GRANTED.

ORDER ENTERED September 8, 2014.

 PER CURIAM

 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
* 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. 98-50445

Summary Calendar 

 

RHONDA FLEMING,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RATLIFF, Officer, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-97-CV-405

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

October 13, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rhonda Fleming, Texas prisoner #598829, seeks to proceed in

forma pauperis (IFP) in the appeal of the dismissal of her civil

rights complaint for failure to state a claim under § 28 U.S.C.

1915(e)(2)(b)(ii). By moving for IFP, Fleming is challenging the

district court’s certification that IFP status should not be

granted on appeal because her appeal is not taken in good faith. 

See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Fleming’s complaint alleged that her hands were twisted so

forcefully that she continued to suffer from pain in her wrists 
No. 98-50445

- 2 -

 

** Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).

over 71⁄2 months after the incident. Her allegations, if true,

raise a valid excessive-force claim under the Eighth Amendment. 

Thus, the district court erred in dismissing Fleming’s complaint

for failure to state a claim under § 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii),

on the ground that her physical injuries were de minimis. 

“[I]n reversing the trial court in cases where the merits

are so intertwined with the certification decision as to

constitute the same issue, the prior expedient practice of

determining the merits of the appeal as well as the

appropriateness of IFP status will remain an available appellate

disposition.” Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202. Accordingly, Fleming’s

motion for IFP is GRANTED, the district court’s judgment is

VACATED, the district court’s certification decision is VACATED,

and the case is REMANDED to the district court for further

proceedings, including in the court’s discretion, a Spears**

hearing or other appropriate factual development. 

IFP GRANTED. JUDGMENT VACATED. CERTIFICATION VACATED. CASE 

REMANDED.
Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Charles M. Weaver, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
          Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, AIG Debenture-Backed Series
          2002-10 Trust (the "Trust") and all reports on Form 8-K containing
          distribution or servicing reports of the Trust filed in respect of
          periods included in the year covered by this annual report of the
          Trust;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
          whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this
          annual report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
          required to be provided to the Depositor by the Trustee under the
          pooling and servicing or similar agreement, for inclusion in these
          reports is included in these reports; and

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          Depositor and the Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar
          agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance
          review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the
          reports, the Depositor and Trustee have each fulfilled its
          obligations under that agreement.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as Trustee.

Date: March 27, 2006


         /s/ CHARLES M. WEAVER
----------------------------------------
Charles M. Weaver, Senior Vice President
Donald Cross Sr. 

15273 I'lncliurslDr. l^uisiiig, MI 18906 

;/ R-' -) 

;-•-''I'l l h-ji ' 

•r',.^.Ti,'-,i._ •, 

^ 2:00 Datc:FcbniJiry9, 2012 

Docket Mjuiagcmcnl Facility 

U.S. Dcpailmciit olTranspoitatioii 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0089 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

West Building Grand Floor, Room W-120140 

Washiiigton, DC 20590 

Dctir: Dockcl Maiiagcmciil Facility, 

I am writing to you on behalf of Sun Country Airlines nonstop Lansing to Wasliington DC route to ask you to consider 

extending tlie slot exemption reference Docket #FAA-2012-0089. Please reconsider. 

Sincerely, 

(Donald Cross Sr.
|                                                                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                                            
|View History:                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                                
|Alabama Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                
|Alabama Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 1      | 5      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 4      | 5      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 9      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 74     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
AUGUST 3, 1994

          INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS          OF THE STATE OF VERMONT
                   NUMBER                              SHARES




                           THE VERMONT WITCH HAZEL CO.
                       AUTHORIZED 100 SHARES COMMON STOCK
                                  NO PAR VALUE
THIS  CERTIFIES  THAT  _________________________________is  the
registered  holder  of  ______________________________________  Shares

                           THE VERMONT WITCH HAZEL CO.
Transferable  only  on  the  books  of  the  Corporation by the holder hereof in
person  or  by  Attorney  when  surrender of this certificate properly endorsed.

In  Witness  Whereof:  The  said  Corporation  has caused this Certificate to be
signed  by  its  duly  authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto
affixed
                               This _____________day
                              of____________ 19___


                             ________________________
                            ________________________
                                     Secretary
                                    President
                                 CORPORATE SEAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

DONNA LANGAN,

TERESA DE BARBARAC, and

ALEXANDRA CARSON

Plaintiffs,

§

§

§

§

§ Cause No. 1:20-cv-275

v. §

§

GREG ABBOTT, in his Official Capacity as 

Governor of Texas; and

KEN PAXTON, in his Official Capacity as 

Attorney General of Texas

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to extend the deadline to respond to Defendants’ 

pending Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry 5) which was filed May 15, 2020. Pursuant to Local 

Rule CV-7(e), Plaintiffs would have 14 days to respond.

Plaintiffs ask the Court to extend the deadline an extra 7 days to Friday, June 5, 2020.

Defendants are unopposed to this motion. 

DATED: May 29, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brian McGiverin

Brian McGiverin

Texas Bar No. 24067760

brian@austincommunitylawcenter.org

Judith Bohr

Texas Bar No. 24092153

judith.bohr@austincommunitylawcenter.org

AUSTIN COMMUNITY LAW CENTER

1411 West Ave

Austin, TX 78701

Telephone: (512) 596-0226

Fax: (512) 597-0805

Case 1:20-cv-00275-RP Document 7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 2
2

Moira Meltzer-Cohen

Pro Hac Vice Pending

277 Broadway, Suite 1501 

New York, NY 10007 

Telephone: (347) 248-6771

Fax: (929) 232.2056

mo_at_law@protonmail.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of 

record who have appeared in this matter through the Electronic Case Files System of the Western 

District of Texas.

/s/ Brian McGiverin

Brian McGiverin

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify I conferred with Defendants’ counsel, and they are not opposed to this motion.

/s/ Brian McGiverin

Brian McGiverin

Case 1:20-cv-00275-RP Document 7 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

vs. Case No.:

MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Comes now , applicant herein, and

moves this Court to grant admission to the United States District Court for the Western District of

Texas pro hac vice to represent in this case, and

would respectfully show the Court as follows: 

1. Applicant is an attorney and a member of the law firm (or practices under the name of)

with offices at: 

Mailing address:

City, State, Zip Code:

Telephone: Facsimile:

2. Since , Applicant has been and presently is a

member of and in good standing with the Bar of the State of .

Applicant's bar license number is .

3. Applicant has been admitted to practice before the following courts:

Court: Admission date:

86&RXUWRI$SSHDOV)HGHUDO&LUFXLW 0DUFK

WACO DIVISION

WSOU Investments, LLC

6:20-cv-00454-ADA

Microsoft Corporation

Brooke S. Boll

Microsoft Corporation

Sidley Austin LLP

555 West Fifth Street

Los Angeles, CA 90013

(213) 896-6000 (213) 896-6600

December 2, 2017

California

318372

U.S. District Court, C.D. of California July 25, 2018

U.S. District Court, N.D. of California July 30, 2018

US Court of Appeals, First Circuit November 2, 2018

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 67 Filed 03/29/21 Page 1 of 4
4. Applicant is presently a member in good standing of the bars of the courts listed above,

except as provided below (list any court named in the preceding paragraph before which

Applicant is no longer admitted to practice):

5. I have have not previously applied to Appear Pro Hac Vice in this district

court in Case[s]:

Number: on the day of , .

Number: on the day of , . 

Number: on the day of , . 

6. Applicant has never been subject to grievance proceedings or involuntary removal

proceedings while a member of the bar of any state or federal court, except as

provided:

7. Applicant has not been charged, arrested, or convicted of a criminal offense or offenses,

except as provided below (omit minor traffic offenses):

8. Applicant has read and is familiar with the Local Rules of the Western District of Texas

and will comply with the standards of practice set out therein.

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 67 Filed 03/29/21 Page 2 of 4
Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 67 Filed 03/29/21 Page 3 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

YV &DVH1R

ORDER

%(,75(0(0%(5('RQWKLVGD\WKHUHZDVSUHVHQWHGWRWKH&RXUWWKH0RWLRQIRU

$GPLVVLRQ3UR+DF9LFHILOHGE\ FRXQVHOIRU

DQGWKH&RXUWKDYLQJUHYLHZHGWKHPRWLRQHQWHUV

WKHIROORZLQJRUGHU

,7,625'(5('WKDWWKH0RWLRQIRU$GPLVVLRQ3UR+DF9LFHLV*5$17('DQG

PD\DSSHDURQEHKDOIRI

LQWKHDERYHFDVH

,7,6)857+(525'(5('WKDWLIKHVKH

KDVQRWDOUHDG\GRQHVRVKDOOLPPHGLDWHO\WHQGHUWKHDPRXQWRIPDGHSD\DEOHWRClerk, U.S.

District CourtLQFRPSOLDQFHZLWK/RFDO&RXUW5XOH$7OI

6,*1('WKLVWKHGD\RI

WACO DIVISION

WSOU Investments, LLC

6:20-cv-00454-ADA

Microsoft Corporation

Brooke S. Boll

Microsoft Corporation

Brooke S. Boll Microsoft Corporation

Brooke S. Boll

Please Choose Judge

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 67 Filed 03/29/21 Page 4 of 4