alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<pre>

Exhibit 31.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Ludlum
Construction Co., Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that:

(i) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the
annual period ended December 31, 2004 , as amended,
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Report.

              				/s/   Bob Martyn
						          ---------------------------
              				Bob Martyn
              				President
                     (Principal Executive Officer)

Dated:  April 22, 2005



Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002 the undersigned officer of Ludlum
Construction Co., Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that:

(i) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the
annual period ended December 31, 2004 , as amended, (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Report.

                        VOTE POWER CORPORATION
                        /S/ Inti Shaikh
                        ----------------------------
                        Inti Shaikh
                        Secretary/Treasurer
                        (Principal Financial Officer)


Dated:  April 22, 2005
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60545

Summary Calendar

Arturo Eduardo Lopez-Agustin, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A206 239 182

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Arturo Eduardo Lopez-Agustin, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his 

application for cancellation of removal. Lopez-Agustin contends that the IJ

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 8, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60545 Document: 00516349323 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2022
No. 20-60545

2

erred in determining that he failed to show that his removal would cause 

exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children. 

When the BIA affirms the IJ without opinion, as it did here, we review 

the IJ’s decision. See Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and legal 

determinations are reviewed de novo. Guerrero Trejo v. Garland, 3 F.4th 760, 

774 (5th Cir. 2021). Whether we have jurisdiction is also reviewed de novo. 

Nehme v. I.N.S., 252 F.3d 415, 420 (5th Cir. 2001).

The Government urges that Lopez-Agustin failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies as to his arguments related to non-economic 

hardship. However, Lopez raised before the BIA other issues, including his 

children’s educational opportunities and gang violence in Guatemala. Thus, 

Lopez-Agustin has exhausted his administrative remedies. See Carranza-De 

Salinas v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 200, 206 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that an issue 

can be adequately exhausted when raised before the BIA “in a less developed 

form”). 

The consequences facing Lopez-Agustin’s children if he were 

removed are not “substantially beyond the hardship usually associated with 

a parent’s removal.” Guerrero Trejo, 3 F.4th at 775. Furthermore, despite 

his arguments to the contrary, the IJ acknowledged all of Lopez-Agustin’s 

children and acknowledged more than just economic factors in determining 

the hardship question.

The record does not compel a finding that his children would suffer 

exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he were removed; thus, 

substantial evidence supports the determination that Lopez-Agustin was 

ineligible for cancellation of removal. See id. at 774. 

Case: 20-60545 Document: 00516349323 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2022
No. 20-60545

3

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED and the 

Government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED as 

moot.

Case: 20-60545 Document: 00516349323 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/08/2022
No. 14-0058 - Citynet, LLC v. Ray Toney 

### FILED February 6, 2015 released at 3:00 p.m. RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS Justice Ketchum, dissenting: OF WEST VIRGINIA

I disagree with the majority decision. As I read Citynet’s Employee Incentive Plan, the plaintiff was not entitled to redeem the entire balance of his vested fringe benefits when he quit. In Syllabus Point 5 of Adkins v. American Mine Research, Inc. , 765 S.E.2d 217 (W.Va. 2014), this Court reaffirmed the principle that the determination of whether a fringe benefit is a “wage” payable under the Wage Payment and Collection Act “is governed by the terms of the employment agreement, whether written or in the form of a consistently applied unwritten policy.” According to § 5.7(b) of the written Incentive Plan, the plaintiff was only entitled to redeem up to a maximum of 20% of his vested balance each calendar year. Citynet appears to have structured the plan to maintain the stability of its investments in the Incentive Plan, and to only allow employees to make withdrawals at limited times, in limited amounts. I am not wholly convinced that the majority opinion’s interpretation of the Incentive Plan is correct, because it interprets the written language in a way that destabilizes the Incentive Plan for employees other than the plaintiff. Put simply, I would have reversed the circuit court and entered judgment in favor of the employer.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the audited
financial statements of Mount Vintage Plantation Golf Club, LLC for the period
from inception to December 31, 1998, contained in the Annual Report on Form
10-KSB of Mount Vintage Plantation Golf Club, LLC and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           207,023
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 207,023
<PP&E>                                         1,878,977
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,086,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,233,726
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                       1,168,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (315,726)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,086,000
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       0
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 315,726
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  315,726
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     315,726
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

G ERARDO R OBLES J R ./R EFUSE TO

FAIL TRUCKING LLC

, Appellant,

v.

M ODESTO A VILA

. ,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00 076

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3

o f El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2022CCV00129 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be

dismissed for want of prosecution. Finding Appellant Gerardo Robles Jr./Refuse to Fail Trucking

LLC has failed to file its appellant’s brief

, or a motion for extension of time to file such brief , we

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

On June 19, 2023, t he Clerk of the Court notified Appellant that neither its brief nor a

motion for extension of time had been filed

. The letter advised Appellant that the Court intended

to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless Appellant responde d

, within ten days of the

date of the notice, by showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1).

Appellant has not filed an appellant’s brief

, a motion for extension of time , nor a response to the2 Court’s inquiry. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

.

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).

G INA M. PALAFOX, Justice

June 30, 2022

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox, and Soto

, JJ

.
Submitted on record and briefs October 4,

affirmed without opinion October 22,

petition for rehearing denied November 15, petition for review denied December 27, 1973

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*RICHARD BARTLEY THOMPSON (No. 73 1120), *Appellant.*STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*RICHARD BARTLEY THOMPSON (No. 73 1121), *Appellant.*

514 P2d 1373

Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem, for appellant.

Lee Johnson, Attorney General, John W. Osburn, Solicitor General, and Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, for respondent.

Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Langtrt and Fort, Judges.

Affirmed without opinion. ORS 19.180.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DAVID W. ROBERTS and ROYAL PALM PROPERTIES, LLC,

Appellants,

v.

CHRISTIE'S GREAT ESTATES, INC., n/k/a CHRISTIE'S 

INTERNATIONAL REAL ESTATE, INC. a Florida Corporation; PREMIER 

ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC.; GERALD P. LIGUORI; CARMEN N. 

D'ANGELO, JR.; JOSEPH G. LIGUORI; RICK S. FELBERBAUM, 

Individually; and FELBERBAUM & ASSOCIATES, P.A., a Florida 

Professional Association,

Appellees.

No. 4D16-2768

[March 1, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Meenu Sasser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2009-CA-040545-

XXXX-MB.

Robert J. Hauser of Pankauski Hauser PLLC, West Palm Beach; David 

R. Hazouri of Rafool, LLC, Miami; Gerald F. Richman, Gary S. Betensky 

and Brett L. Goldblatt of Richman Greer, P.A., West Palm Beach; and 

Robert A. Sweetapple of Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, PL, Boca Raton, 

for appellants.

Alan B. Rose, Gregory S. Weiss and L. Louis Mracheck of Mrachek, 

Fitzgerald, Rose, Konopka, Thomas & Weiss, P.A., West Palm Beach, for 

appellee, Christie's International Real Estate, Inc.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
2
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 26 , 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00452

- CR

ROBERT GALVAN LLANAS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 230th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1402859

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a guilty plea to aggravated assault of a family member . In accordance with the terms of a plea agreement with the State, the trial court deferred adjudicati on of guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for a period of seven years, and assessed a fine of $ 3 00. Subsequently, the State moved to adjudica te guilt. Appellant pled true to the State’s allegations and executed a waiver of his right to appeal in exchange for the State’s recommendation that punishment be assessed at confinement for eight years in the Institutional Division2

of the Texas Departmen t of Criminal Justice and a fine of $ 3 00

. The trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated appellant guilty, and, in accordance with the State’s recommendation, assessed punishment at confinement
for eight years in the Institutional D ivision of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a fine of $ 3 00. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.

The trial court entered a certification of the defendant ’ s right to appeal in
which the court certified that the appe lla nt waived the right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). A valid waiver of appeal prevents a defendant from appealing
without the trial court ’ s consent. Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
When a defendant waives his right of appeal in exchange for consideration from the State, his waiver is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and he may not appeal any matters unless the trial court first grants permission. See Ex
parte Broadway, 301 S.W.3d 694, 697

– 99 (Tex. Cri m. App. 2009) (holding that defendant may knowingly and intelligently waive appeal without sentencing agreement when consideration is given by State for waiver); Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The record shows that appellant
waived his right to appeal as partial consideration, along with his plea of true , for
the State ’ s recommendations on punishment

. The record also reflects that the trial court did not give its permission to appeal.
Because appellant has no righ t of appeal, the appeal must be dismissed

. See Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9, 12 n. 12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Donovan.
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74 -73

 39

 40

 41

 42

▲ ★

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/12

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 12 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 160 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S10472]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

              SACRAMENTO RIVER CATS TRIPLE-A CHAMPIONSHIP

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize the 2008 
Minor League Triple-A baseball champions, the Sacramento River Cats.
  On September 16, 2008, the Sacramento River Cats, of the Pacific 
Coast League, PCL, defeated the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Yankees, of the 
International League, 4 to 1 in the Bricktown Showdown to become back-
to-back Triple-A champions. Sacramento is the Triple-A affiliate of the 
Oakland Athletics.
  The Sacramento River Cats finished the regular season atop the 
Pacific Coast League Southern Division with a record of 83 wins and 61 
losses. The River Cats were assisted this season by their always 
faithful fan base, which has led Triple-A in attendance for nine 
consecutive seasons.
  In the opening playoff series between the River Cats and the Salk 
Lake City Bees, the River Cats excelled by scoring 39 runs en route to 
a 3-games-to-1 series victory. The series victory demonstrated the 
River Cats' depth of talent as four starting pitchers, four relief 
pitchers, two infielders, and one outfielder were called up to the 
Oakland Athletics before the series began.
  In the Pacific Coast League Championship Series, the River Cats 
defeated the Texas Rangers Triple-A affiliate Oklahoma City Red Hawks, 
winning the series three games to one to repeat as PCL champions. 
During this series, the River Cats proved their ability to perform on 
the road by achieving two of their three victories in Oklahoma. The win 
also earned the River Cats their fourth Pacific Coast League 
Championship in the last 6 years.
  In the Triple-A championship game, River Cats manager Todd Steverson 
showcased his talented pitching staff. The River Cats used six pitchers 
who combined for nine strikeouts while only giving up a single run. The 
victory gave the Pacific Coast League all three of the Triple-A 
championships since the Triple-A championship game was reinstated 3 
years ago.
  As the River Cats' fans, players, and staff gather to celebrate this 
remarkable accomplishment, I would like to congratulate them on an 
outstanding season.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 23(d)1








INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-104449 of Gulf Power Company on Form S-3 of our reports dated March 1, 2004
(which report on the financial statements expresses an unqualified opinion and
includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the change in the method of
accounting for asset retirement obligations), relating to the financial
statements of Gulf Power Company as of and for the years ended December 31, 2003
and 2002 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gulf Power Company for
the year ended December 31, 2003.


/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 1, 2004
EXHIBIT 24

                           POWER OF ATTORNEY

        KNOW ALL  MEN  BY  THESE PRESENTS  that  each  individual  whose
   signature appears  below constitutes  and appoints  Thomas D. Rooney,
   Steven R. Andrews and  Gregory T. Knipp, and  each of them, his  true
   and  lawful   attorney-in-fact  and   agent   with  full   power   of
   substitution, for him and in his name, place and stead in any and all
   capacities, to  sign  the Report  on  Form 10-K  and  all  amendments
   thereto, and to  file the same,  with all exhibits  thereto, and  all
   documents in connection therewith,  with the Securities and  Exchange
   Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each
   of them full power and authority to do and perform each and every act
   and thing  requisite and  necessary to  be done  to comply  with  the
   provisions of the Securities  Exchange Act of  1934, as amended,  and
   all requirements of  the Securities and  Exchange Commission,  hereby
   ratifying and confirming all  that said attorneys-in-fact and  agents
   or any of them, or their or his substitutes, may lawfully do or cause
   to be done by virtue thereof.

        Pursuant to the requirements of  the Securities Exchange Act  of
   1934, this  report  has  been  signed on  October  27,  1998  by  the
   following persons in the capacities indicated.

        Signature                     Title

   /s/Jeff M. Moore                 Chairman of the Board and Director
   Jeff M. Moore     


   /s/Thomas D. Rooney              President, Chief  Executive  Officer
   Thomas D. Rooney                 and Director



   /s/Robert E. Anderson III        Director
   Robert E. Anderson III


   /s/Jeffrey D. Benjamin           Director
   Jeffrey D. Benjamin


   /s/Robert N. Dangremond          Director
   Robert N. Dangremond
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CINDY NADELBACH and BARRY NADELBACH, as Co-Personal 

Representatives of the Estate of JOSHUA NADELBACH,

Appellants,

v.

WELLINGTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, LLC; MATTHEW 

ROMANELLI, D.O.; BERRY PIERRE, D.O.; HERBERT DANIEL 

DANOWIT, M.D.; STEPHEN MALUTICH, D.O.; and ACCOUNTABLE 

TEACHING SERVICES, LLC,

Appellees.

No. 4D2022-2989

[January 18, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Paige Gillman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2020-CA-010179-

XXXX-MB.

Marshall E. Rosenbach of the Law Offices of Marshall E. Rosenbach, 

North Palm Beach, for appellants.

Alexandra Hershorn, Jeffrey Blostein and Jay Cohen of Cohen, Blostein 

& Ayala, PA, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Wellington Regional Medical 

Center, LLC. 

Jason M. Azzarone, Jeffrey M. Goodis, and Patrick D. Wier of La Cava, 

Jacobson & Goodis, P.A., Tampa, for appellees Matthew Romanelli, D.O., 

and Stephen Malutich, D.O. 

Dinah S. Stein and Sharon R. Vosseller of Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & 

Stein, P.A., Miami, and James L. White, III, of White & Russell, P.A., Palm 

Beach Gardens, for appellees Herbert Daniel Danowit, M.D., and 

Accountable Teaching Services, LLC.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.
2

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
.cls-1 {        fill: #fff;      }      .cls-2 {        fill: #30302f;      }      .cls-3 {        fill: #00954c;      }      .cls-4 {        fill: #96366e;      }      .cls-5 {        fill: #1d1613;      }
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 175 (Monday, November 17, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S10535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        House of Representatives

The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on 
Wednesday, November 19, 2008, at 1 p.m.

                   _________________________________
```
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




Exhibit 4.1  


    INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  



	No.
	 	Shares




The State of California  


[LOGO] 


Axtion Foods, Inc.
  One Hundred Million Common Shares Authorized, $0.001 Par Value  


    This Certifies That SPECIMEN is the owner of            Common Shares $0.001 par value each of the Capital Stock of 


Axtion Foods, Inc.  


transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. 


    In
Witness Whereof, the said corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers, and to be sealed with the Seal of the Corporation this
      day of            At 


[SEAL]




	
 President	 	
 Secretary



SHARES $0.001 EACH  


 CERTIFICATE

FOR

SHARES



[SEAL APPEARS HERE]



OF THE

CAPITAL STOCK


  AXTION FOODS, INC.
  ISSUED TO



DATED  


For Value Received      hereby sell, assign and transfer unto     



Shares of the Capital Stock represented by the written Certificate and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint            to transfer the said Stock on the books of the within named
corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. 


Dated      


In
presence of      


NOTICE.
THE SIGNATURE OF THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN ON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION AND ENLARGEMENTS OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER