alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1
                                                                    ------------
I, C. Dean McLain, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Western Power &
Equipment Corp.;

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;
and

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:  June 16, 2008

/s/ C. Dean McLain
--------------------------------
C. Dean McLain
President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 33.1





REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIAFOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES





Entergy New Orleans, LLC (the “Servicer”), as a party participating in the servicing function under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, hereby reports on its assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as follows:





(1) The Servicer is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it. The servicing criteria specified in the following paragraphs of paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB are not applicable to the Servicer based on the activities it performs with respect to asset-backed securities transactions taken as a whole involving the Servicer and that are backed by the same asset type backing the Senior Secured Storm Recovery Bonds: (1)(ii) (outsourcing), (1)(iii) (back-up servicing), (1)(iv) (fidelity bond), 2(iii) (advances or guarantees), (2)(vi) (unissued checks), (4)(iii) (additions, removals or substitutions), (4)(v) (records regarding pool assets), (4)(ix) (adjustments to interest rates), (4)(x) (funds held in trust for an obligor), (4)(xi) (payments on behalf of obligors), (4)(xii) (late payment penalties), (4)(xiii) (obligor disbursements), and (4)(xv) (external credit enhancement);





(2) The Servicer used the criteria in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria;





(3) The Servicer has determined that it is in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ending December 31, 2021,  which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K; and





(4) Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Servicer's assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2021, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K.











---




Dated: March 28, 2022


Entergy New Orleans, LLC, as servicer


By: /s/ Steven C. McNeal





Name:  Steven C. McNeal


Title:   Vice President and Treasurer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership (the Operating Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Terry L. Stevens, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Highwoods Properties, Inc., general partner of the
Operating Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1) | The 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Operating Partnership.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ TERRY L. STEVENS                                             
|Terry L. Stevens                                                 
|                                                                 
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner
|                                                                 

November 29, 2006
#### Frank CRUM, movant, v. The MATEWAN NATIONAL BANK, opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 16, 1951.

Jasper H. Preece, Inez, for movant.

Clyde L. Miller, Louisa, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.
# QSBL 093018

# QSBL 063018

# QSBL 033118

# QSBL 123117

# QSBL 093017

# QSBL 063017

# QSBL 033117

# QSBL 123116

# QSBL 093016

# QSBL 063016

# QSBL 033116

# QSBL 123115

# QSBL 093015

# QSBL 063015

# QSBL 033115

# QSBL 123114

# QSBL 093014

# QSBL 063014

# QSBL 033114

# QSBL 123113

# QSBL 093013

# QSBL 063013

# QSBL 033113

# QSBL 123112

# QSBL 093012

# QSBL 063012

# QSBL 033112

# QSBL 123111

# QSBL 093011

# QSBL 063011

# QSBL 033111

# image1.png
Sl()-l()()3()9-() 2



# Cit y of Pal mSpring s Department

o f Aviatio n Pal mSpring s Internationa l Airpor t 340 0 E . Tahqui K

Canyo n Way , Suit e OF C • PaJ mSprings , Californi a92262-696 6 Tel : <760 ) 318-380 0 • Fax : (760 ) 518-381 5 • Web : www.palmspringsairporc.co m

March 1,201 0 Th e Honorabl e Raymon dH . LaHoo d Secretar y U.S . Department

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Ave , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Docket DOT-OST-2010-003 4 Dea r Mr . Secretary : Pleas e suppor

t an dapprov e th e applicatio n fo r antitrus t immunit y an d jom t

busines s agreemen

t filedb y America

n Airline s an dJapan Airlines . Approva l o f thi s applicatio n b y th e U.S . Department

o f Transportatio n woul d enabl e thes e oneworl d allianc e airline s t o wor k closel y togethe r t o deliver

highl y competitiv e servic e a s wel l a s compete effectively wit h th e Sta r and Slq^Tea malliances . Thi s increase dallianc e competitio n wil l i n turn enhanc e th e benefit s o f th e Department' s Ope n Skie s polic y - first b y solidifyin g U.S . - Japan Ope n Skies , the n b y servin g a s afoundatio n for

furthe r liberalizatio n acros s Asia . Approva l fo r th e AA/JA L allianc e wil l hav e apositiv e impac t o n ai r trave l b y offerin g customer s mor e servic e an dth e schedulin g an d pricin g option s tha t foster greate r level s o f globa l travel . Pal mSpring s i s aworl dclas s destinatio n market , drawin g visitor s travelin g b y ai r fi-om throughout

Nort h American an dth e world . A s w e continu e t o compete with other destination s aroxm d th e glob e fo

r valuabl e touris mtravel , i t i s vita l t o maintai n th e ver y highes t level s o f airlin e choice s an dacces s fo r ou r customers . We urg e you t o quickl y approv e thi s application . Sincerely , 

# ^ k Thoma s Nolan , A.A.E . Executiv e Directo r Pal mSpring s International Airpor t

Pos t Offic e Box 274 3 • Pal mSprings , Californi a92263-274 3 ^ ^
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6752

KEITH D. WILSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DON WOOD, Superintendent; THEODIS BECK, Secretary of

Corrections,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Jr.,

District Judge. (1:06-cv-00408-WO-WWD)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 22, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith D. Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith D. Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his second Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The notice of appeal was

received in the district court shortly after expiration of the

appeal period. Because Wilson is incarcerated, the notice is

considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to prison

officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1);

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). The record is ambiguous as

to when Wilson gave the notice of appeal to prison officials for

mailing. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited purpose

of allowing the district court to obtain this information from the

parties and to determine whether the filing was timely under Fed.

R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack. The record, as

supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further

consideration.

REMANDED
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 198 Received in Senate (RDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 198

 Providing for an adjournment of the House from Wednesday, January 26, 
                   1994 to Tuesday, February 1, 1994.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 25, 1994

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for an adjournment of the House from Wednesday, January 26, 
                   1994 to Tuesday, February 1, 1994.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on Wednesday, January 26, 1994, it stand 
adjourned until noon on Tuesday, February 1, 1994.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 25, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

PHAMELLA AKI YASHIRO,

MICHAEL COLACO HWANG JUNIOR,

 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION SERVICES, et al.

 Defendants. 

 Case No. 3:22-cv-636

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a)(1)(A)(i)

Since the filing of this lawsuit, Defendants have finally adjudicated the long-pending 

applications of the Plaintiffs Phamella Aki Yashiro and Michael Colaco Hwang Junior. As such, 

the present lawsuit is now moot.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiffs Phamella Aki Yashiro and Michael 

Colaco Hwang Junior hereby voluntarily dismiss the instant action with prejudice. Each side to 

bear their own fees and costs. 

/s/ James O. Hacking, III

James O. Hacking, III, MO Bar # 46728

Hacking Immigration Law, LLC

10900 Manchester Rd., Suite 203

St. Louis, MO 63122

Phone: 314.961-8200

Fax: 314.961.8201

Email: jim@hackingimmigrationlaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

Case 3:22-cv-00636-B-BN Document 7 Filed 05/19/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 51
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 19, 2022, the foregoing Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was 

filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court to be served by operation of the Court’s electronic 

filing system.

/s/ James. O. Hacking, III

James O. Hacking, III, MO Bar # 46728

Hacking Immigration Law, LLC

Case 3:22-cv-00636-B-BN Document 7 Filed 05/19/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 52
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Kate Gibson, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

October 16, 1957.

*David Kelly*for Katherine G. Fougera and another, as trustees, petitioners.

*Henry N. Rapaport*for Harry Sanger and others, respondents.

*William A. Sheehan*for Grace National Bank of New York, respondent.

*Gerald Blumberg*and *B. Leo Schwarz*for Simeon Wolf man, respondent.

*Barent L. Visscher*for Margaret G. Lewis, respondent.

*Charles I. Pierce, Jr.,*for Katherine G. Fougera, respondent.

*Syrena H. Stackpole*for Margaret L. Lewis, as executrix of Gibson Lewis, deceased, respondent.

*Irving D. Novick*for Rita Sendach, respondent.

*Harold D. Romanow,*special guardian for Kenneth L. Lewis, an infant, respondent.

*283Joseph A. Cox, S.

Allowances have been requested by counsel under section 278 of the Surrogate’s Court Act. Payment of such compensation from the general estate is justified because the clarification of the will is beneficial to the entire estate. *(Matter of Ablett,*3 N Y 2d 261, 279; *Matter of James, 2*Misc 2d 468, 470.) Such allowances may be made for services rendered on the construction of the will; they may not be made for other services rendered to the client. *(Matter of del Drago,*178 Misc. 325, affd. 264 App. Div. 718, affd. 289 N. Y. 601.) In fixing the amount of the compensation, the court has endeavored to appraise the value of the services to the estate generally rather than the value to the particular client *(Matter of James, supra; Matter of Charles, 2*Misc 2d 928), and such allowances are without prejudice to the right of counsel to seek from their respective clients such additional compensation as may be just and reasonable for the client to pay.

The attorneys who filed no memoranda with the court and took no active part in resolving the question of construction are not entitled to compensation from the general estate. In keeping themselves abreast of the argument and advising their clients of the progress of the litigation, they undoubtedly rendered service to their clients, but their services were not so beneficial to the estate as to justify compensating them therefrom.

Complete the decree and resubmit for signature.
#### BROCK v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct 19, 1951.

' Lewis & Weaver, London, for'appellant.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., Wm. F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., .for appellee.

MOREMEN, Justice.

Appellant, Walton Brock, was indicted in the Laurel 'Circuit Court and charged with the offense of unlawfully, willfully, forcibly, and by bribery, effecting 'his' escape' from the sheriff of Laurel County at a time when he was under arrest on a charge of rape. The offense is defined by subsection (1) of KRS 432.370 as follows: “Any prisoner confined on a sentence of imprisonment or under a capias who escapes jail, or any person lawfully arrested for a violation of the criminal or penal laws who forcibly or by bribery effects his escape from the officer or guard, shall be imprisoned for not less than six nor more than twelve months.”

Upon trial of the case, a jury found the defendant guilty and fixed his punishment at eight months in jail. Judgment was entered upon the verdict. The appellant ■complains that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a directed verdict.

The sheriff relates the incident upon which the indictment was founded in the following language: “We 'had him arrested, and he asked me to go to the house with him so he could change clothes. He was working on a car and was greasy. ' H'e asked me to sit down and he took his *coveralls*off, and went in the kitchen, to wash, and told his wife to fix his supper. Í heard the dishes rattling around and them talking. When they 'hushed talking, in a minute or two I went in and-said Where is Walton, and she said he stepped outside. I asked what for, and she said to take a bath, he took a pan of water. I said he has run off, and she said he will be back. I stepped outside and called him and he was gone.”

We are committed to the rule that an esr cape from the custody of an officer is a punishable offense under KRS 432.370(1) only if accomplished as a result of force in some degree or by bribery. The reasons, which support this rule, are carefully *1008set forth in the case of Maggard v. Commonwealth, 173 Ky. 97, 190 S.W. 666, which is similar in fact to the case at bar. The rule was. restated in the case of Potter v. Commonwealth, 199 Ky. 77, 250 S.W. 496. See also Crosby *v.*Commonwealth, 242 Ky. 62, 45 S.W.2d 822.

Wherefore, the motion for an appeal is sustained, the judgment is reversed and the- case is remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion. If the evidence, is substantially the same on another trial, the’ court will instruct peremptorily for the defendant. ’
*

Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50783 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SIMON CASTRO, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(W-02-CR-21-1)

-------------------- February 13, 2003 Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Simon Castro, Jr., has moved for le ave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Castro has not filed a
response. Our independent review of the brief and record discloses

no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, cou nsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. S ee 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ESI AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,274,167
<SECURITIES>                                 4,851,726
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,193,559
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,069,603
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,377,096
<PP&E>                                       5,630,784
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,665,946)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,987,553
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,039,627
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       101,852
<OTHER-SE>                                  59,877,434
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,987,553
<SALES>                                      3,360,059
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,360,059
<CGS>                                        1,875,676
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,875,676
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,949,721
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             162,615
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,502,415)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,502,415)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.25)


</TABLE>
Case 2:22-cr-00028-Z-BR Document 104 Filed 06/01/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 243