alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
31.1
 
 **CERTIFICATIONS**
 
 I,
Tammy-Lynn McNabb, certify that:
 
 1.
    I
      have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of Vitasti,
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(s) 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 (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;
 
 5.
    The
      registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 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.
 
 Date:
April 15, 2005     /s/
Tammy-Lynn McNabb _______________________
 Tammy-Lynn
McNabb, Chief Executive Officer
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3253 

Making continuing appropriations for all departments and agencies of the 

Federal Government, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 5, 2013 

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

Making continuing appropriations for all departments and 

agencies of the Federal Government, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fiscal Sanity Act for 

5 Appropriations’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS. 

7 There is hereby appropriated for 210 days after the 

8 date of enactment of this Act— 

9 (1) for each project or activity for which budget 

10 authority was provided in the Consolidated and FurVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:54 Oct 06, 2013 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3253.IH H3253

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3253 IH

1 ther Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public 

2 Law 113–6), an amount equal to the budget author3 ity provided in such Act, as reduced pursuant to the 

4 Presidential sequestration order dated March 1, 

5 2013, to remain available for a comparable period of 

6 availability; and 

7 (2) for entitlements and other mandatory pay8 ments whose budget authority was provided in ap9 propriations Acts for fiscal year 2013, and for activi10 ties under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, such 

11 amounts as may be necessary to maintain program 

12 levels as they existed on September 30, 2013. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

I, Michael J. Post, President,Treasurer and Chief Executive Officer of Gasel Transportation Lines Inc. (the“Registrant”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on myknowledge:

 

1.             The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBof the Registrant for the period ended June 30, 2003 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

2.             The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Registrant.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to GaselTransportation Lines, Inc. and will be retained by Gasel Transportation Lines,Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 
| Dated: | August 18,  2003 |                              | By: | /s/ Michael  J. Post |
|--------|------------------|-----------------------------------|-----|---------------------------|
|   |             | Michael J.  Post                  |
|   |             | President,  Treasurer & Chief |
|   |             | Executive  Officer                |

 

----
#### GARZA v. RESENDEZ.

No. 12431.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Sept. 10, 1952.

L. A. Ashcroft, R. M. Bounds, McAllen, for appellant.

L. Hamilton Lowe, Austin, A. J. Vale, Rio Grande City, for appellee.

POPE, Justice.

This is a suit brought by the heirs of Leandro Resendez, a comaker of a promissory note, against J. J. Garza, the other comaker, for recovery of the amount Res-endez paid the holder of the note after maturity. Plaintiff recovered judgment in the trial court on the proposition that, as between the parties, Resendez was an accommodation maker only and as such was entitled to sue the accommodated party on the note. After maturity date, Resendez, the accommodation maker, paid the holder who indorsed the note over to Resendez. The court, as the trier of facts, found upon sufficient evidence, that as between the two makers, Resendez was an accommodation maker. Appellant, Garza, urges that payment extinguished the note and no cause of action was asserted by a suit on the note.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. This case does not concern the rights of a holder against a comaker, but only the rights between an accommodation and an accommodated maker. In such a relationship, the accommodation maker’s right of recourse against the party accommodated is that of a surety against the principal debtor. 11 C.J.S., Bills and Notes, § 750a. Such a surety not only may sue his principal in assumpsit for reimbursement, but he may also prosecute an action on the note itself. Art. 5939, Vernon’s Civ.Stats., § 121; Fox v. Kroeger, 119 Tex. 511, 35 S.W.2d 679, 77 A.L.R. 663; Durham v. McDowell, Tex.Civ.App., 265 S.W. 425; 77 A.L.R. 663 (Anno.); contra: 11 C.J.S., Bills and Notes, § 750b (2); See Note, 36 A.L.R. 575; 77 A.L.R. 672.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 210 (Monday, October 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27811]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-848]


Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of New-
Shipper Antidumping Review: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the 
People's Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christian Hughes or Maureen Flannery, 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4106 and (202) 482-3020, 
respectively.

The Applicable Statute

    Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act) are to the provisions effective January 1, 
1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, 
all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 
(1999).

Background

    On June 1, 2000, the Department published a notice of initiation of 
new shipper administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on 
Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, 
covering the period September 1, 1999 through February 29, 2000 (65 FR 
35046). The preliminary results are currently due no later than 
November 21, 2000.

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results

    Because of the complexities enumerated in the Memorandum from 
Barbara E. Tillman to Joseph A. Spetrini, Extension of Time Limit for 
the Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish 
Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, dated October 24, 2000, 
we find this case is extraordinarily complicated and thus are unable to 
complete this review by the scheduled deadline. Therefore, in 
accordance with section 351.214(i)(2) of the Department's regulations, 
the Department is extending the time period for issuing the preliminary 
results of review by 120 days (i.e., until March 21, 2001).

    Dated: October 24, 2000.
Edward C. Yang,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III.
[FR Doc. 00-27811 Filed 10-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
SERVED: AUGUST 26, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

ARCTIC AIR ALASKA, INC. 

DOCKET NO. FAA 2014-0316 

(Civil Penalty Action). 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "Agency") has filed a Motion 

for Decision on the Pleadings dated July 22, 2014. 

The Agency avers in its motion that Arctic Air Alaska, Inc., (hereinafter 

"Respondent") requested a hearing via letter sent to Agency's counsel on May 19, 2014. 

The Agency filed a Complaint dated May 22, 2014. 

We served our Procedural Order on June 12, 2014. 

Respondent has failed to file an Answer to the Complaint. Respondent has failed 

to file a response to our Procedural Order. Respondent has failed to respond to the 

Agency's Motion for Decision on the Pleadings. 

WHEREFORE, it be and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

1. On or before September 15,2014, Respondent shall file a response to this 

Order stating why the relief requested in the Agency's Motion should not be granted; and 

2. On or before September 15,2014, Respondent shall answer the 

Complaint; and 

3. On or before September 15, 2014, Respondent shall fully comply with our 

Procedural Order; and 

· 4. Absent full and complete responses to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 hereinabove, 

Respondent may be sanctioned including, but not limited to, allegations in the Complaint 

may be deemed admitted; and/or Respondent may be precluded from introducing any 

evidence at the hearing other than his own testimony; and/or Respondent's Request for 
2 

Hearing may be dismissed; and/or a Default Judgment may be entered against 

Respondent in the full amount of the fine requested by the Agency in its Complaint. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
3 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE 

COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, 

S.W. Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 

James I. Hamilton, President /CEO 

Arctic Air Alaska, Inc., Respondent 

3540 University Ave. South 

Fairbanks, AK 99709 

Peter Lynch, Complainant's Counsel 

Assistant Chief Counsel for 

Enforcement 

Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-300 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-7728 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

ONE COPY 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0316 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service vws by p.s. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: .t< edera 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; .Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6441

PEDRO RODRIGUEZ AVILA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THEODIS BECK,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (1:06-cv-00387-JAB)

Submitted: July 19, 2007 Decided: July 25, 2007

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pedro Rodriguez Avila, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Pedro Rodriguez Avila, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Avila has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                         AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                   6,087,789
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                            2,067,123
<ALLOWANCES>                                40,000
<INVENTORY>                              4,058,293
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        12,370,722
<PP&E>                                   3,126,193
<DEPRECIATION>                             483,623
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          15,066,358
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    3,126,503
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0 
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    27,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,000  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            15,066,358
<SALES>                                 18,084,174
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        18,084,174
<CGS>                                   12,230,757
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            4,810,374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          (197,492)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        (222,947)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          1,017,589
<INCOME-TAX>                               316,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        701,189
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               701,189
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.28
        


</TABLE>
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-372-001]

Take notice that on October 19, 2000, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) tendered for filing in compliance with the Commission's order dated September 29, 2000 at Docket No. RP00-372-000, a revised allocation of interest costs.

On June 30, 2000 ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) filed an Interest Recovery Plan to direct bill certain shippers for interest charges paid by ANR to Great Lakes Gas Transmission L.P. (Great Lakes). The order required ANR to allocate, but not direct bill, costs to all discount shippers, unless such discount shippers are subject to additional charges.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on or before November 1, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-27854  Filed 10-30-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Ex parte KING.

No. 22113.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 25, 1942.

Mel Janes, of Lubbock, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Mary Belle King was convicted in the County Court of Scurry^ County in Cause No. 3024 for violation of the liquor law as applied to that county. Upon appeal to this Court the judgment of the trial court was affirmed and mandate issued in accordance with the order of affirmance. The Sheriff of Scurry County took her in charge to serve the period of confinement provided in the judgment of conviction. This proceeding was brought to secure her release from the custody of the Sheriff and is upon the theory that the local option election relied on by the prosecution was invalid in that the notices of the election were not given in accordance with the provisions of the law existing in the year 1902 when the election was held.

Reliance is had on the minutes of the court. Thé record reflects that an order was entered directing'the clerk to issue and post notices of the election as required by law. On the 21st day of May, 1902, the Commissioners’ Court met, canvassed the returns and declared the results and directed that the county judge publish the order in a newspaper .in Scurry County. It then appears that the county judge filed his certificate on the 24th day of June showing that he caused the order to be published in the “Western Light” on the 29th day of May, the 5th, 12th and 19th days of June. This same certificate appears at a later place in the minutes bearing the same date, but attested by a different party as the county clerk of date June 13, 1903. It is the contention of relator that the notices of election were not posted by the clerk and, consequently, the election was void. The reason for the order appearing twice is not discoverable from the record, but it is inferred that it was for the purpose of correcting an error, the nature of which is not discovered. At any rate, Art. 3397, R.C.S. of 1895, in effect at the time, provided for the contest of elections within thirty days. The manner of contesting the same was also set out.

The presumption rests that the Commissioners’ Court passed upon the regularity of the election and determined as a fact that there had been a posting of the notices of election as required by law. Segars v. State, 35 Tex.Cr.R. 45, 31 S.W. 370; Bowman v. State, 38 Tex.Cr.R. 14, 40 S.W. 796; Irish v. State, 34 Tex.Cr.R. 130, 29 S.W. 778.

Relators rely upon Watson v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 632, 122 S.W.2d 311. The distinction lies in the fact that in the Watson case it affirmatively appears on the face of the record that the statute had not been complied with in a material respect, rendering the election void. The record before us is silent as to whether or not the notices were posted. The fact they were published is not considered a denial of the posting as the law required.

The judgment of the trial court is af firmed.