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

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                  -------------

I, Robert A. Levinson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Levcor International,
Inc.;

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 annual
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
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this annual 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 annual report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer's auditors and
the audit committee of small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: March 22, 2004
--------------------

/s/ ROBERT A. LEVINSON
-------------------------------
Robert A. Levinson,
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer

                                      -57-
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. FR AN CI SC O M I GU EL AN GEL N A JE R A -G O R D IL L O , a. k. a. M i gu el A ng elG on za l ez , D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 11- 10006 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 5 -cr-0 0 3 8 3 -E JG ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia E dw ar d J . G a r c i a , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e bruary21, 2012 ** B e f o r e : F E RN A N D E Z , M c K E O W N , an dB Y B E E , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . F r an c is c o M ig u e l A n g e l N a je r a - G o r d illo ap p e a ls f

r o m th e 3 2 4 - m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e df

o llo w in g h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n f o rc o n s p ir a c yto d is tr ib u te 

# FI LED MA R 05 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 10006 2 an dt o p o s s e s s w i th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e me th a mp h e t a mi n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. §§ 84 6 and 84 1(a) (1), and p osse ss i on w i th i nt entt o d i stribu t e m etham ph et am i ne, in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , an dw e a f

f i rm. N a je r a - G o r d illo c o n te n d s th a t th e s e n te n c e im p o s e dis s ub s tan tiv e ly un re as on abl e. T he re cord ref l ec t s thatthe di stri ctcourtconsi dere d N aj er aG or di l l o’ s a r gum e nt s i n m i t i ga t i on and pr ovi de d aw e l l - r e a s one d a na l y s i s of the 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s , be f

or e c onc l udi ng tha tas e nt e nc e a tthe b o tto m o f

th e G u id e lin e s r an g e w a s ap p r o p r ia te . T h e s e n te n c e is s ub s tan tiv e ly r e a s onabl e unde rthe t ot a l i tyof the c i r c um s t anc e s a nd i n l i ghtof the s e c t i on 3 5 5 3 ( a ) s e n te n c in g f

a c to r s . See G al l

v. U ni ted States , 55 2 U . S . 38 , 51 (200 7). AF F I RME D.
#### LLOYDS CASUALTY CO. OF NEW YORK v. DURDIN.

No. 1418.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Dec. 14, 1933.

Vinson, Elkins, Sweeton & Weems, of Houston, for appellant.

King, Wood & Morrow and H. E. Cox, all of Houston, for appellee.

ALEXANDER, Justice.

The above cause was removed to this court on a supersedeas bond; On'October 6, 1933, a motion was filed in this court to require the appellant to file a new supersedeas bond, on *384the ground that the surety on the original bond had become insolvent. Thereafter on October 19, 1933, after due notice, said motion was granted and the appellant ordered to file a new supersedeas bond. This order was not complied with within the time required by law. It then became the duty of the clerk of this court, under the provisions of Revised Statutes, articles 2273 and 2274, to consider said original supersedeas bond for the purpose of determining whether or not the same was sufficient as a cost bond, and said clerk on November 20, 1933, after due consideration, determined that said bond was insufficient as a cost bond and so notified counsel for appellant of his decision thereon on November 21, 1933. It now appears that the appellant has been notified of said decision of the clerk of this court for more than twenty days, that being the time allowed by law for filing a new appeal bond, and that the appellant has wholly failed to file herein a new appeal bond. We are therefore of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for the failure to execute and file in this court a new appeal bond, as provided by law, and it is so ordered.
ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE COMPANIES INC.

                                 AMENDED BY-LAW

                              ARTICLE IV. OFFICERS

         Section 1. Number and Qualifications. The officers of the corporation
         shall include the Chairman of the Board of Directors, the President
         and the Secretary. Any two or more offices, other than President and
         Secretary, may be held by the same person. The President and Secretary
         shall be elected from time to time by the Board of Directors, each to
         hold office until the meeting of the Board of Directors following the
         next annual meeting of the shareholders, or until his or her successor
         shall have been duly elected, and shall have qualified, or until his
         or her death, or until he or she shall have resigned, or have been
         removed, as hereinafter provided in these By-Laws. The Board of
         Directors shall also elect the Chief Executive Officer of the
         corporation, which shall be either the Chairman of the Board of
         Directors or the President. The officers of the corporation
         also may include such other officers as may be determined by the
         Chief Executive Officer to be necessary or desirable for the business
         of the corporation. Such other officers shall have such duties and
         shall hold their offices for such terms as may be determined by the
         Chief Executive Officer.



                                              Adopted March 16, 2000
-95 -90 -85 -80 -75 -70

35 40 45



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000

18 12 06 00 06/22 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 22 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21346]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 10, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 318 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-651, CP2024-660.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-21346 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
##### 



EXHIBIT
10.47
 THIS WARRANT AND THE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK ISSUABLE UPON EXERCISE OF THIS WARRANT HAVE NOT
BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE ACT) OR ANY STATE SECURITIES
LAWS,AND ARE RESTRICTED SECURITIES AS THAT TERM
IS DEFINED IN RULE 144 UNDER THE ACT. THE
SECURITIES MAY NOT BE SOLD, OFFERED FOR SALE, OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED UNLESS AND UNTIL REGISTERED
UNDER SAID ACT AND ANY APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS, OR UPON RECEIPT BY THE COMPANY OF AN
OPINION OF COUNSEL SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT SUCH REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED.
  WARRANT TO PURCHASE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK ISSUE DATE:
September 28, 2006
  Exercise of the Warrant
 Exercise Exhibit I




---



##### 



Exercise Date and Status as Holder of Shares
 Issuance of Certificates
   Warrant Shares
 Adjustments
 Adjustment for Stock Splits and Combinations
 Adjustment for Certain Dividends and Distributions
 - 2 -




---



##### 



provided however
 Adjustment in Number of Warrant Shares
 Adjustment for Reorganization
 No Adjustments in Certain Cases
 - 3 -




---



##### 



Treasury Stock.
 Fractional Shares
 Investment Representations
 Investment
 Accredited Investor
 Experience
 Transfers, etc.
    - 4 -




---



##### 



Exhibit II
 6. No Impairment; Adjustment of Par Value
   Record
Date, etc
    - 5 -




---



##### 



Reservation of Stock
 Exchange or Replacement of Warrants
   Notices.
 - 6 -




---



##### 



No
Rights as Stockholder; No Liability
 Payment of Taxes provided however
 Amendment or Waiver
 Section Headings
 Severability
 Assignment
 Governing Law
 Signatures
  - 7 -




---



##### 



CYTOCORE, INC.By:

/s/
Robert F. MeCullough,Robert F. MeCullough, Jr.Title:  Chief Financial Officer - 8 -




---



##### 



To:
    
    Dated:
 
 
 Signature:Address:
 - 9 -




---



##### 



Name of Assignee
    
    Address
    

No. of SharesDated:
    
    
    
    Signature:Signature Guaranteed:By:
  - 10 -
#### McCULLOUGH v. STATE.

No. 16550.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 10, 1934.

R. E. Eubank, of Paris, for appellant

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for rape; the punishment being assessed at five years in the penitentiary.

The record is before this court without a statement of facts. The only bill of exception brings forward complaint at the refusal of certain special- charges. • Without knowing' what facts were proven on the trial, manifestly this court is in no position to determine whether the special charges were appropriate. Thé presumption prevails that the trial court acted correctly in refusing them.

The judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.10.1


Schedule identifying substantially identical agreements, between Visteon
Corporation ("Visteon") and each of the persons named below, to the Revised
Change in Control Agreement constituting Exhibit 10.10 to the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of Visteon for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004.


                                  Name
                                  ----
                                  Peter J. Pestillo

                                  Michael F. Johnston

                                  James C. Orchard

                                  James F. Palmer

                                  Dr. Heinz Pfannschmidt

                                  Anjan Chatterjee

                                  Stacy L. Fox

                                  Robert H. Marcin
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas
NO. 01

- 14

- 00458

- CV JAGDISH TUMMALA, M.D ., EVEREST INPATIENT PHYSICIANS, PLLC, SH AH & DICHOSO, PLLC, PRAGN ESH R. SHAH, M.D., P .A., AND DARYL D. DI CHOSO,

M.D., P.A. , Appellant s/Cross

- Appellees

V.
TOTAL INPATIENT SERVICES, P.A. , Appellee /Cross

- Appellant Appeal from the 270th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2012

- 72321 ). This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on May 15, 2014 . After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the portion of the trial court’s judgment as to liability and damages . Accordingly, the Court reverse s the portion of the trial court’s judgment rendering judgment for appellee/cross

- appellant, Total Inpatient Services, P.A., and against appellants/cross

- appellees, J agdish Tummala, M.D., Everest Inpatient Physicians, PLLC, Shah & Dichoso, PLLC, Pragnesh R . Shah, M.D., P.A., and Daryl Di choso, M.D., P.A

. , and awarding Total Inpatient Services, P.A. damages, post

-

judgment interest, and court costs . The Court further renders judgment that Total Inpatient Services, P.A. take nothing on its claims against app ellants

.The Court further holds that there was no reversible error in the remaining

portions of the trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the Court affirms the remaining portions of the trial court’s judgment

. The Court orders that the appellee, Total Inp atient Services, P.A., pay all appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance. Judgment rendered August 27 , 2015

. Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle. Opinion delivered by Justice Jennings.
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. *21111.*

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 8, 1940.

Percy Foreman, of Houston, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for burglary of a private residence at night, punishment being five years in the penitentiary.

The record contains no statement of fa-cts or bills of exception, save a number of exceptions to the court’s charge, and to the refusal of some special charges, none of which may be appraised in the absence of the facts.

The judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>

                               CONSENT OF KPMG LLP

                                   EXHIBIT 23

<PAGE>

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Wilmington Trust Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-43675, 333-04042, 333-61096, 333-69479, 333-80009, 333-86748,
333-114597, 333-124246, 333-124248) on Forms S-8 and registration statements
(Nos. 333-69453 and 333-76332) on Forms S-3 of Wilmington Trust Corporation of
our reports dated February 22, 2006, with respect to the consolidated statements
of condition of Wilmington Trust Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31,
2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2005, management's assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005 and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,
2005, which reports are incorporated by reference in the December 31, 2005
annual report on Form 10-K of Wilmington Trust Corporation.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 6, 2006
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Igor Gonda, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aradigm Corporation;     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 includedin this 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 this report;     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 information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely 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 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 of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.                                                    /s/ Igor Gonda   Igor Gonda                                    *President and Chief Executive Officer*   Dated: November 14, 2007
#### KINNEY v. STATE.

No. 19191.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 17, 1937.

J. D. Todd, Jr., of Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully carrying a pistol; penalty assessed at a fine of $250.

*64The transcript is void of a notice of appeal. Such notice, given in open court and entered of record, is essential to the jurisdiction of this court. See article 827, Vernon's Ann.C. C. P., vol. 3; Pullen v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 292, 68 S.W.(2d) 181; Shelbourne v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 298, 98 S.W.(2d) 192; Fullbright v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 101 S.W.(2d) 571.

The appeal is dismissed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JOSEPH MARTIN, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-10239

D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00678-DGC-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 7, 2023**

Phoenix, Arizona

Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Joseph Martin (“Martin”) appeals the denial of his motion for relief 

from judgment filed under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without 

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 9 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Martin cannot challenge the final order at issue under rules applicable to civil 

proceedings. Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unambiguously 

provides: “These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in 

the United States district courts, except as stated in Rule 81.” The judgment and 

order from which Martin seeks relief were not entered in a civil case, but in a 

criminal proceeding. Civil Rule 60(b) simply does not provide for the relief Martin

seeks. 

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

CertificationPursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

I,  Edileen Salicrup, the Acting Chief FinancialOfficer of ClearComm, L.P., certify that (i) the June 30, 2003 10-Q Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the June30, 2003 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of ClearComm, L.P.

 

 
|   | /s/ Edileen Salicrup            |
|--------|---------------------------------|
|   | Edileen Salicrup                |
|   | Acting Chief Financial  Officer |
|   | December 10, 2004               |

 

----