alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2



I, F. F. Falls, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Community First Financial Corporation.



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



4. The registrants other certifying officers 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 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 annual
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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 officers 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 functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which could 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.



|                     |  |                                         
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|Date: March 29, 2004 |  | /s/ F. F. Falls                         
|                     |  | F. F. Falls                             
|                     |  | Vice President Chief Financial Officer
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2405

_____________________________
J OHNEKA J OHNSON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County

. Paul S. Bryan , Judge

. October 16, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OWE , O STERHAUS , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Johneka Johnson, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JEFFREY VARNER, LISA ROBINSON, 

AND MICHAEL HOSSLER,

Respondents

v.

SWATARA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF 

COMMISSIONERS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 202 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

1. Whether the Commonwealth Court committed an error of law in 

concluding that the First Class Township Code required Swatara

Township to seek judicial approval of its by-ward reapportionment 

effort despite the applicability of the Municipal Reapportionment Act 

and Article IX, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the 

legislative authority afforded to Pennsylvania municipalities to conduct 

reapportionment[?]

2. Whether the Commonwealth Court committed an error of law by 

interpreting the phrase “not entirely elected at large” contained in the 

Pennsylvania Constitution and Municipal Reapportionment Act in a 

manner violating the rules of statutory construction[?]

M.D. Appeal Dkt.

49 2017
**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 Quarterly Report of Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Patrick J. Moore, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| /s/ Patrick J. Moore    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Patrick J. Moore        |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
| May 7, 2008        |   |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided toSmurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained bySmurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DANIEL GERARD LACEY,

Petitioner,

v. OP 20-0142

THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, HON.GREGORY R.TODD, District Court Judge,

Respondent. 

### MAR 2It 2020
Bowen G

t reenwood Eeme Court ° tta i l l e o ontana 

# (..irttGINAL

Daniel Gerard Lacey petitions this Court for a writ ofsupervisory control over the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, and the Honorable Gregory R. Todd. Lacey seeks reliefhere because the District court issued an Order denying his writ ofhabeas corpus on December 23,2019,and stated that "Lacey's remedy under a Writ of Habeas Corpus is not available to him . . . " because "[h]e does not get another bite ofthe Habeas apple." Lacey contends that his "Fundamental Constitutional Rights" have been violated because of this procedural bar. Lacey puts forth that supervisory control is necessary because he cannot appeal a denial ofa habeas corpus petition. Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy. "Supervisory control is appropriate `when urgency or emergency factors exist making the normal appeal process inadequate, when the case involves purely legal questions,and when one or more of three enumerated circumstances exist. M. R.App.P. 14(3)." City ofBillings ex rel. Huertas v. Billings Mun. Court,2017 MT 261,¶ 2, 389 Mont. 158,404 P.3d 709. We do not find the existence ofurgency or emergency factors,and we conclude that supervisory control is not warranted because the District Court is not proceeding upon a mistake of law causing a gross injustice. M. R. App. P. 14(3). Lacey's fundamental constitutional rights have not been violated nor is the writ ofhabeas corpus suspended. 03/24/2020

Case Number: OP 20-0142A district court's denial ofa petition for writ ofhabeas corpus in a criminal

proceeding is not appealable to this Court. Morrison v. Mahoney, 2002 MT 21,¶ 8, 308 Mont. 196,41 P.3d 320 (citing Coble v. Magone,229 Mont.45, 46, 744 P.2d 1244, 1245 (1987), in turn citing In re Hart, 178 Mont. 235, 583 P.2d 411 (1978)). This is so because a writ of habeas corpus may be granted by either a district court or this Court and, as a result, the denial of such a writ by a district court is not resjudicata because it does not divest us ofjurisdiction to grant a subsequent petition. Morrison,¶ 8(citing Hart, 178 Mont.at 241,583 P.2d at 414,and § 46-22-202(1),MCA). Thomas v. Doe,2011 MT 283,¶ 3, 362 Mont. 454,266 P.3d 1255. While Lacey may not be able to appeal the court's decision,he is not precluded frorn seeking habeas corpus relief with this Court. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Lacey's Petition for a Writ of Supervisory Control is DENIED and DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to the Honorable Gregory R. Todd, Thirteenth Judicial District Court; to Terry Halpin, Clerk of District Court, Yellowstone County, under Cause No. DV-19-1645; to counsel ofrecord; and to Daniel Gerard Lacey personall . DATED this *Z-Lt day ofMarch,2020.

ChiefJustice

Justices
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Peter G. Savas, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boston Life Sciences, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) [Not Applicable];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth 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 financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     DATE: November 14, 2006 /s/ Peter G. Savas         **Peter G. Savas**    **Chief Executive Officer**
#### LANDROM v. STATE.

No. 22309.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 2, 1942.

Sam T. Holt, of Carthage, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of possessing whisky in a dry area for the purpose of sale, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $100.

It appears from the complaint and information that Fred Menchen, Frank Mad-dison and appellant were jointly charged with the offense of the possession of whisky in a dry area for the purpose of sale. Upon motion, a severance was granted and appellant alone was put on trial which resulted in his conviction as above stated.

There is no statement of facts or any bills of exception in the record. However, we find some objections to the court’s charge, but if the same were ever presented to the trial court, the record fails to reflect any action thereon by the court or any exceptions by appellant to the court’s action relative thereto.

The charge may not be an accurate application of the law to the facts, but in the absence of a statement of facts, as well as any specific objection pointing out ■the claimed error in the court’s charge, and in the absence of the submission of special requested charges on the subject showing that the court declined to heed the objections and also declined to submit the special requested charges to which timely exceptions were taken, there is nothing presented for review. See Robbins v. State, 60 Tex.Cr.R. 523, 132 S.W. 770; Brown v. State, 73 Tex.Cr.R. 571, 166 S.W. 508; Teem v. State, *79*Tex.Cr.R. 285, 183 S.W. 1144; Simpson v. State, 87 Tex.Cr.R. 277, 220 S.W. 777.

No error being reflected by the record, the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
Summary of Outside Director Compensation


		
			Summary of Outside Director Compensation Program 
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Annual Retainers
		

		
			﻿
		

			
					
						﻿

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Director

					
					
						$45,000

					
					
						Paid quarterly at beginning of quarter

				
	
					
						﻿

					
						Chair of Audit Committee

					
					
						 

					
						+$15,000

					
					
						 

					
						Paid quarterly

				
	
					
						﻿

					
						Chair of Compensation Committee

					
					
						 

					
						+$10,000

					
					
						 

					
						Paid quarterly

				
	
					
						﻿

					
						Chair of Nominating and Governance Committee

					
					
						 

					
						+$10,000

					
					
						 

					
						Paid quarterly

				
	
					
						﻿

					
						Non-chair Audit Committee member

					
					
						 

					
						+$9,000

					
					
						 

					
						Paid quarterly

				
	
					
						﻿

					
						Non-chair Compensation Committee member

					
					
						 

					
						+$6,000

					
					
						 

					
						Paid quarterly

				
	
					
						﻿

					
						Non-chair Nominating Governance Committee member

					
					
						 

					
						+$6,000

					
					
						 

					
						Paid quarterly

				
	
					
						﻿

					
						Note: All travel expenses paid based on voucher

				



		
			﻿
		

		
			STOCK COMPENSATION:$75,000/year; each grant subject to one year vesting; stock compensation granted in May of year.
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Note:  For subsequent new Board members who join Board mid-year, cash and stock compensation is pro-rated.
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			25617101.2
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
Initial to indicate certification as to information on this page (full text of certification is on page one). Date INSTRUCTIONS: Please type or print in ink. Please read carefully the attached instructions and supply the information requested on this form. Use additional sheet(s) if necessary.

2. Case # and Name 3. Date and Type of DCI and Number

4. EPA Product Registration 5. I wish to cancel this product registration voluntarily 6. Generic Data 7. Product Specific Data

6a. I am claiming a Generic Data Exemption because I obtain the active ingredient from the source EPA registration number listed below. 6b. I agree to satisfy Generic Data Requirements as indicated on the attached form entitled "Requirements Status and Registrant's Response." 7a. My product is an MUP and I agree to satisfy the MUP requirement on the attached form entitled "Requirements Status and Registrant's Response." 7b. My product is an EUP and I agree to satisfy the EUP requirement on the attached form entitled "Requirements Status and Registrant's Response." OMB Approval 2070-0174

1. Company Name and Address 4026 - Copper thiocyanate Chemical # and Name: 025602 Copper thiocyanate 16-Jan-2013 GENERIC ID # GDCI-025602-1261 

### United States Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C. 20460 DATA CALL-IN RESPONSE 1 Page of 1

8. Certification: I certify that the statements made on this form and all attachments are true, accurate, and complete. I acknowledge that any knowingly false or misleading statement may be punishable by fine, imprisonment or both under applicable law. Signature and Title of Company's Authorized Representative ______________________________________________________
10. Name of Company N/A N/A

9. Date

11. Phone Number
Exhibit 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 48-5 Filed 01/29/21 Page 1 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 48-5 Filed 01/29/21 Page 2 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 48-5 Filed 01/29/21 Page 3 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 48-5 Filed 01/29/21 Page 4 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 48-5 Filed 01/29/21 Page 5 of 5
CLYDE BAILEY P.C.
                            Certified Public Accountant
                               10924 Vance Jackson #404
                               San Antonio, Texas 78230
                                   (210) 699-1287 (ofc)
                 (888) 699-1287 -- (210) 691-2911 (fax)





January 10, 2003





Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C.  20549




RE:  JavaJuice.net
     Registration Statement on Form 10-KSB


I consent to the use of my report, dated February 4, 2003, in the
Company's Form 10-KSB annual report filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Sincerely,



Clyde Bailey, CPA
#### C. L. RAINES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27047.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 23, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 20, 1954.

*813W. J. Duke, Albert Reagan, Dallas, for appellant.

Charles S. Potts, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge. ■

The conviction is for felony theft; the punishment, four years in the penitentiary.

Notice of appeal was given on February 10, 1954, and the statement of facts found in the record was not filed in the trial court untii May 14, 1954.

Not having been filed within the time allowed by law, we are not authorized to consider the statement of facts or the informal bills therein, and nothing is otherwise presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion For Rehearing

MORRISON, Judge.

Appellant’s attorneys have filed an affidavit in which they state that they delivered the statement of facts herein “to counsel for the State for approval and that it was approved by them on a date unknown to appellant-, but within two weeks from February 23, 1954, and was thereupon immediately delivered to the Clerk of the Trial Court, with a request that it be filed.”

If counsel can secure a supplemental transcript supporting their assertion that the statement of facts was, in fact, delivered to the clerk in time for filing, they should do so.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
4834-8745-2865.3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 

JONATHAN VILLAREAL, 

individually and derivatively on behalf of

ZROBLACK LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

JOHN SAENZ; MIGUEL VILLAREAL, 

JR.; and GUNN, LEE & CAVE, P.C., 

Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

No. 5:20-CV-00571-OG

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT JOHN SAENZ’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Defendant John Saenz’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and it is therefore 

ORDERED that all claims against Defendant John Saenz are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

It is further ORDERED that Defendant John Saenz is DISMISSED from the present lawsuit. The 

Court further ORDERS that Defendant John Saenz is entitled to recover his attorneys’ fees and costs 

from Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at a subsequent hearing. 

So ORDERED this ________ day of ____________________, 2020. 

The Hon. Orlando L. Garcia, 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 8-1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 1 of 1
#### Elpido Rivera et al., Respondents, v Ford Motor Credit Company, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Ford Motor Credit Company appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated November 28, 1988, as denied its cross motion pursuant to CPLR 327 to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it on the ground of forum non conveniens.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and the facts, and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the defendant Ford Motor Credit Company’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against it is granted, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed, on condition that the defendant Ford Motor Credit Company accepts service of process in New Jersey within 30 days after service upon it of a copy of this decision and order with notice of entry, agrees to waive any defense based on the Statute of Limitations not available in New York at the time of the commencement of this action, and appears in New Jersey in an action for the same relief demanded in the complaint; in the event the conditions are not complied with the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

The defendant Ford Motor Credit Company (hereinafter Ford Credit) appeals from the denial of its motion to dismiss the complaint against it on the ground of forum non conveniens. Upon our review of the relevant factors, we find that Ford Credit met its burden of demonstrating that the cause of action against it does not bear a substantial connection with this State, militating against its retention of jurisdiction *(see, Islamic Republic v Pahlavi,*62 NY2d 474, 479, *cert denied*469 US 1108; *Rappaport v Robert Travel Bur.,*129 AD2d 620, 621). Thus, we conclude that the Supreme Court’s denial of Ford Credit’s motion to dismiss was an improvident exercise of its discretion *(see, Banco Ambrosiano v Artoc Bank & Trust Co.,*62 NY2d 65, 73-74). Accordingly, Ford Credit’s motion is granted on the conditions set forth herein. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.