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

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Richard B.Frost, certify that:

          1.I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Parkview Group, Inc.;

          2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

          3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

          4.The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e) and 15d-15 (e)) for the registrant and have:

               (a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

               (b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

               (c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

          5.The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

               (a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

               (b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 30821 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

DAVID JEROME FRANK

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:03

- CR

- 20067

- 1

Before KING, GRAVES , and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

David Jerome Frank, federal prisoner # 08457

- 035 , appeals the district

court’s denial of h is 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentencing reduction

based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. On March 15, 2016,

before this case was decided, Frank was released from federal custody. “Where

a defendant has begun serving a term of supervised release, the appeal of the

denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion is moot.” United States v. Booker , 645 F.3d

* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 se t forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED
November 17, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-30821 Document: 00513763625 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2016No. 15

- 30821

2 328, 328 (5th Cir. 2011). Because Frank’s appeal concerns only the term of h is

i mprisonment, and make s no challenge to h is term of supervised release, h is

arguments pertain only to relief under § 3582(c)(2). Accordingly, Frank’s

appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Case: 15-30821 Document: 00513763625 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2016
Order filed October 29, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00738-CV

____________

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF RICHARD CARTER AND 

BRENDA LACKEY

On Appeal from the 309th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-37440

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed September 23, 2019. To date, the 

filing fee of $205.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant is excused by 

statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying costs has been filed. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 5. Therefore, the court issues the following order. 

Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $205.00 to the 

clerk of this court on or before November 13, 2019. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If 

appellant fails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal 

will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
   THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
   BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT OF PORTSMOUTH SQUARE, INC. SET FORTH
   IN ITS FORM 10-K REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
   QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-K REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000079661
<NAME> PORTSMOUTH SQUARE, INC.

<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         21225
<SECURITIES>                                 1137569
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1232674
<PP&E>                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2205951
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         148329
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                     2092300
<OTHER-SE>                                    113651
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2205951
<SALES>                                      1860190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1960718
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              285911
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1674807
<INCOME-TAX>                                  670694
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1004113
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1004113
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   1.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   1.34





</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE UNAUDITED INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR
BILLING CONCEPTS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                        135,734
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  40,874
<ALLOWANCES>                                    2,403
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              197,975
<PP&E>                                         48,137
<DEPRECIATION>                                 22,565
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                245,494
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         128,704
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          385
<OTHER-SE>                                    113,146
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  245,494
<SALES>                                         1,242
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               37,972
<CGS>                                           1,202
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  23,833
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (3,908)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (248)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (3,660)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (3,660)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.10)


</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JONATHAN LACUE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1300

[April 17, 2019]

Appeal and cross-appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Tim Bailey, Judge; L.T. Case No. 96-

023020 CF10B.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and J. Woodson Isom, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. 

Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In 1999, Jonathan Lacue was found guilty and convicted of first-degree 

murder and robbery with a firearm. He was sentenced to concurrent terms 

of life imprisonment for the first-degree murder conviction and 15 years’ 

imprisonment for the robbery conviction.

In 2012, Lacue moved for post-conviction relief based on Miller v. 

Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). Because Lacue was 17 years old when he 

committed the crime, he argued that his life sentence violated the Eighth 

Amendment. The circuit court denied the motion, but on appeal, this 

court reversed and remanded. Lacue v. State, 183 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2015). On remand, Lacue was resentenced to life imprisonment.

Lacue raises five issues on appeal, and we affirm without comment with 

one exception.

Lacue argues—and the state concedes—that the trial court should have 

included language in the resentencing order providing for sentence review 
2

after 25 years as required by section 921.1402(2)(a). We accept the 

concession and remand for the trial court to provide for sentence review. 

See § 775.082(1)(b)3., Fla. Stat. (2017) (“The court shall make a written 

finding as to whether a person is eligible for a sentence review hearing 

under s. 921.1402(2)(a) or (c).”); Cook v. State, 225 So. 3d 268, 269 (Fla. 

4th DCA 2017) (affirming the sentence but remanding for the trial court to 

enter the written finding required by the applicable provision of section 

775.082, Florida Statutes).

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

MAY, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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 NB Manufacturing, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert Lazzeri, President and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge,:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d),as applicable, 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 Company.

Date:    November 7, 2007
                                                     /s/ Robert Lazzeri.
                                                     -------------------
                                                     Robert Lazzeri
                                                     President and Director


<PAGE>
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, DC 20549
 FORM
8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 May 7, 2007 (May 1, 2007)
 STERLING CHEMICALS, INC.
  Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction of 
incorporation)
    
    000-50132
(Commission File No.)
    
    76-0502785
(IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 333 Clay Street, Suite 3600
Houston, Texas
(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    77002-4109
(Zip Code)
 (713) 650-3700
  Not Applicable
    
  o
 o
 o
 o




---



##### 



Item 1.01. Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.
 Sterling Collective Bargaining Agreement Union




---



##### 



SIGNATURE
  Date:  May 7, 2007
    STERLING CHEMICALS, INC.By:
    /s/ Richard K. CrumpRichard K. CrumpPresident and Chief Executive Officer
# L_2009001EN.01S00301.xml

| 5.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 1/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 1/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided to no longer quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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. 01-40448 Summary Calendar

ALFRED L. WILSON

Petitioner - Appellant

v. WARDEN U.S. PENITENTIARY BEAUMONT; US PAROLE COMMISSION

Respondents - Appellees

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:99-CV-193

-------------------- November 12, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alfred L. Wilson, federal prisoner # 98870-131, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he challenged the revocation of his parole. He first avers that he was denied his due process right to personally confront the victim during her testimony at the parole-revocation hearing. Although Wilson was not allowed to remain in the room during the victim’s testimony at the revocation hearing, his attorney was present, and he was given the opportunity to cross-examineNo. 01-40448 -2- the victim. Accordingly, Wilson was afforded the minimum procedural due process requirements. See Morrissey v. Brewer , 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972). We also reject Wilson’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. A review of the record reveals that the Parole Commission had “some evidence” from which to conclude that Wilson was guilty of the offense of rape, including the police investigation file and the testimony of Wilson, the victim, Wilson’s parole officer, the police investigator, and the victim’s mother and grandfather. See Villarreal v. United States Parole Comm’n , 985 F.2d 835, 839 (5th Cir. 1993) . The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-R07-OAR-2008-0787 ; FRL ] 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans ; State of 

Missouri 

AGENCY : Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . 

ACTION : Proposed rule . 

SUMMARY : EPA proposes t& approve a revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the state o.f Missouri . 

This revision applies to Missouri's rule relating to restriction 

of emission of visible air contaminants and removes redundant 

definitions, removes an outdated exemption for incinerators used 

to burn refuse in the outstate area of Missouri, and clarifies 

that the test methods stated in the rule shall be used to 

determine the opacity of visible emissions . EPA is not taking 

action on the state submitted revisions relating to open 

burning, as these provisions revise a rule that has not been 

adopted into the SIP . This revision will ensure consistency 

between the state and the Federally-approved rules . 

DATES : Comments on this proposed action must be received in 

writing by [ insert date 30 days from the date of publication in 

the Federal Register] . 

ADDRESSES : Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No . 

EPA-R07-OAR-2008-0787, by mail to Lachala Kemp, Environmental 
2 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 

North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101 . Comments may also 

be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by 

following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the direct final rule located in the rules section of this 

Federal Register . 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Lachala Kemp at (913) 551- 

7214, or by e-mail at kemp .lachala@epa .gov . 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : In the final rules section of the 

Federal Regi ster , EPA is approving the state's SIP revision with 

the exception of the reference in section (1)(I), to the open 

burning rule in 10 CSR 10-6 .045, as a direct final rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency views this is a 

noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant 

adverse comments to this action . A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final rule . If no relevant 

adverse comments are received in response to this action, no 

further activity is contemplated in relation to this action . If 

EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule 

will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed 

action . EPA will not institute a second comment period on this 

action . Any parties interested in commenting on this action 
3 

should do so at this time . Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final 

those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse 

comment . For additional information, see the,direct final rule 

which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register . 

Dated : GE~r" k1 j '0OD1 

December 15, 2009 WilJ~am Rice, 

Acting Regional Administrator, 

Reaion 7 .
EXHIBIT
31.2








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302


OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Wade
Mezey, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this Form 10-Q  for Mezey Howarth Racing Stables,
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 periods 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 small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The
small business issuer'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 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 report is being
prepared;





b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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 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(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the 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: May
21, 2008











/s/ Wade
Mezey


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


Wade
Mezey


Chief
Financial Officer (Interim)
*OPINION ISSUED MAY 28, 2009*

#### Tyann Dawn Lester

(CV-03-0580)

SAYRE, JUDGE:

An application of the claimant, Tyann Dawn Lester, for an award under the West Virginia Crime Victims Compensation Act, was filed November 14, 2003. The report of the Claim Investigator, filed January 3, 2005, recommended that the claim be held in abeyance, to which the claimant filed no response. An Order was issued on August 31, 2005, ordering that no award be made, in response to which the claimant’s request for hearing was filed September 15, 2005.

This matter came on for hearing May 28, 2009, claimant appearing by counsel Michael Magann and the State of West Virginia by counsel, Gretchen Murphy, Assistant Attorney General.

The Court has reviewed the record and determined that the claimant ’ s father, Don Spears, was an innocent victim of criminal conduct. Funeral expenses of $3,419.36 and burial expenses of $2,634.00 were incurred, for a total of $6,053.36. Based upon a Stipulation entered into by claimant and respondent, the parties have agreed to settle this claim in the amount of $6,000.00, representing the maximum award for funeral and burial expenses allowed under W.Va. Code §14-2A-3(f)(2) in effect at the time of the incident.