alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31

CERTIFICATION

I, Anthony N. DeMint, certify that:

> 
1.    I have reviewed this report on Form	10-QSB of Calif Acquisitions, Inc.;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this	quarterly 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 quarterly	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 quarterly report;

4.    I am the sole officer and director	and I am 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		my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the		small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made		known to me 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 disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report		my 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		(the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an		annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to		materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over		financial reporting; and

5.    I have disclosed, based on my most	recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small	business issuer's auditors 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 20, 2005

 

/s/ Anthony N.DeMint                     

Anthony N. DeMint

President and

Chief AccountingOfficer
Order entered November 22, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00816-CV

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT, Appellant

V.

BILLY THOMPSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-00557

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s November 18, 2016 second unopposed motion for an 

extension of time to file appellant’s brief. We GRANT appellant’s motion.

We ORDER the brief be filed no later than December 21, 2016.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
# C_2015308EN.01000101.xml

| 18.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 308/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 308/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7704 — Wilmar International/Fox Petroli/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 308/01)

On 9 September 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7704. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7704. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
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 on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March
      31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by LaserLock
      Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Norman
      A. Gardner, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





1.  The
      Report fully complied 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 operation of the Company.





May
      15,
      2008




/s/
              Norman A. GardnerNorman
                A. Gardner
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              Chief
                Financial Officer





This
      certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
      and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.





Explanatory
      Note: The same individual serves as chief executive (principal) officer and
      principal financial officer. Accordingly, there are no other individuals who
      are
“other certifying officers” referred to in this certification.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAGHVENDRA SINGH,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 15626

D.C. No. 2:14

- cv

- 02382

- JAM

- KJN

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 9 , 2017 **

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Raghvendra Singh appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal and state law

claims related to his real property

. We have juris diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review for an abuse of d iscretion a dismissal for failure to comply with court

* 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

AUG 14 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 15626

orders

. Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc. , 356 F .3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). We

may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnso n v. Riverside

Healthcare Sys. , LP , 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Singh’s action was proper because Singh failed to allege facts

sufficient to state any plausible claims. See Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341

- 42

(9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff

must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief) ; see

also Edwards , 356 F.3d at 1063 ( setting forth de novo standard of review for

dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)).

Dismissal of Singh’s third amended complaint without leave to amend was

proper because the district court provided Singh with th ree opportunit ies to amend,

and further amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide

Home Loans, Inc. , 656 F. 3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 201 1) ( setting forth standard of

review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper w hen

amendment would be futile). We do not consider Singh’s contention that Karen

Singh was not given an opportunity to amend the complaint because Karen S in gh

is not a party to the appeal.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in not appointing counsel

because Singh did not file a motion for the appointment of counsel, and did not

demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Cano v. Taylor , 739 F. 3d 1214, 12183 16

- 15626

(9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for appointment

of counsel).

Singh’s request for the appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening brief,

is denied.

AFFIRMED.
#### O’Malley, Administrator, Appellant, vs. O’Malley, Respondent.

*March 18*

April *4, 1899.*

*Estates of decedents: Setting aside conveyance: Fraud.*

An administrator cannot maintain an action under sec. 3832, Stats. 1898, to set aside a deed of Ms decedent on the ground that it was made with intent to defraud creditors, except for intent to defraud the existing creditors, who alone are represented *by*him.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Sauk county: R. Gr. Siebecker, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Action by an administrator, whose decedent died in 1894, to set aside a deed of real estate, made in 1875, on the ground that the same was made without consideration and with intent to defraud creditors. Judgment was rendered for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

*640The cause was submitted for the appellant on the briefs •of *G. Stevens,*and for the respondent on a brief by *Herman Grotophorst.*

For the respondent it was argued, among other things, that the action could not be maintained because it is not shown that the debt, the collection of which the appellant is trying to enforce, existed or was anticipated at the time of the execution of the deed. In order to set aside a voluntary conveyance as to subsequent creditors, it is necessary not only that actual fraud be shown, but it is also necessary to show a specific intent to defraud the individual subsequent creditor complaining. *Wheeler v. Single,*62 Wis. 380; *Wheeler <& W Mfg. Go. v. Monahan,*63 Wis. 198; *Gole v. Brown,*114 Mich. 396; *Springer v. Bigford,*160 Ill. 495; *Brundage v. Gheneworth,*101 Iowa, 256; *Sehreyer v. Seott,*134 U. S. 405; *Heuberger v. Heim,*134 N. Y. 35; *Fullvng-ton v. H. W. 1. ds B. Asso.*48 Minn. 490; *Second Hat. Bank v. Merrill,*81 Wis. 142.

Dodge, J.

No discussion of the evidence can be useful in this case. There is abundant support for the findings that the deceased, in 1875, executed and delivered to the respondent the deed in question, which was promptly recorded. None of the debts’ now existing against the estate were in existence or in contemplation at that time, nor, indeed, for many years afterward. There can be no right in the administrator, under sec. 3832, Stats. 1898, to attack such conveyance except for intent to defraud the existing creditors, who alone are represented by him. It is wholly immaterial Avhether that deed was made upon sufficient, or any, consideration, or with intent to defraud the holder of some debt existing in 1875. Judgment was properly entered in favor of the defendant, and should be affirmed.

*By the*Court.— Judgment affirmed.
### Faulk, Scott (OST) From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Subject: April15, 2013 Docket Operations M-30 Jeff LaVoi <lavoij@co.hill.mt.us> Monday, AprillS, 2013 11:50 AM Devany, Dennis (OST); Faulk, Scott (OST); EAS (OST) Essential Air

West Building Ground Floor W 12-140 1200 NewJerseyAvenue SE, Washington DC United States ofAmerica Department ofTransportation Office ofSecretary Washington DC RE. Docket DOS_OST-1997-2605 Itwould not be in the best interest ofthe 7 communities being served by Silver Airways in Montana to suspend service to Miles City and Lewistown Montana atthis time. We at Havre, Montana are a part of Essential Air system. Eliminating any communityfrom the service will put all communities injeopardy. With Montana being a large State with few people the need for Essential Air Service is critical. We request you look hard atthe whole system and the impact itwill have on the communities of Montana. Thank you foryour promptattention to this state wide problem. With time things can be worked out. Sincerely Jeff LaVoi Hill County Commissioner Havre, Montana

1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6401

BENJAMIN F. SALLEE, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-97-1185-2) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin F. Sallee, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Susan Lynn Watt, George Maralan Kelley, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia; Michael Alexander Stover, Richard K. Preston, II, UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Chevy Chase, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is date stamped February 24, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on February 26, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM:Benjamin Sallee, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Sallee v. United States Parole Comm’n , No. CA-97-1185-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 26, 1999). * We deny Sallee’s motions for bail pending appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 13.1

  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350,
            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SS. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2003 of Orckit Communications Ltd. (the "Company") as filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on the date
hereof (the "Report") and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Eric Paneth, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify that:

o    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

o    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  April 21, 2004

By: /s/ Eric Paneth

Name:   Eric Paneth
Title:  Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer)
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Colonna's Shipyard, Inc. ) 

dba Steel America Fabrication & Repair ) 

) 

Under Contract No. N40085-13-C-8028 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60145 

Donald C. Holmes, Esq. 

Holmes, Pittman & Haraguchi, LLP 

Greensboro, MD 

Ronald J. Borro, Esq. 

Navy Chief Trial Attorney 

Henry D. Karp, Esq. 

Senior Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 23 November 2016 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60145, Appeal of Colonna's 

Shipyard, Inc. dba Steel America Fabrication & Repair, rendered in conformance with 

the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 08/02 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 02 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TROY BROADUS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 508 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 22, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-16-00270-CV

TANZA ABDULLAH, Appellant

V.

AMERICAN MACHINE CORP., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1060777

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

This is an appeal from a judgment signed March 3, 2016. On May 11, 2016, 

the court reporter filed a notice that no record was taken. The clerk’s record was 

filed June 22, 2016. No brief was filed.

On September 29, 2016, this court issued an order stating that unless 

appellant submitted a brief on or before October 20, 2016, the court would dismiss 

the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).
2

Appellant filed no response. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Busby, and Wise.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00402-CR

Muqtasid Abdul Qadir

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 213th District Court

of Tarrant County (0591998D)

November 23, 2016

Per Curiam 

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 14127]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06203]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD15-2-000]


Review of Cost Submittals by Other Federal Agencies for 
Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act; Notice of Technical 
Conference

    In an order issued on October 8, 2004, the Commission set forth a 
guideline for Other Federal Agencies (OFAs) to submit their costs 
related to Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act. Order On 
Rehearing Consolidating Administrative Annual Charges Bill Appeals And 
Modifying Annual Charges Billing Procedures, 109 FERC ] 61,040 (2004) 
(October 8 Order). The Commission required OFAs to submit their costs 
using the OFA Cost Submission Form. The October 8 Order also announced 
that a technical conference would be held for the purpose of reviewing 
the submitted cost forms and detailed supporting documentation.
    The Commission will hold a technical conference for reviewing the 
submitted OFA costs. The purpose of the conference will be for OFAs and 
licensees to discuss costs reported in the forms and any other 
supporting documentation or analyses.
    The technical conference will be held on March 26, 2015, in 
Conference Room 3M-2B at the Commission's headquarters, 888 First 
Street NE., Washington, DC. The technical conference will begin at 2:00 
p.m. (EST).
    The technical conference will also be transcribed. Those interested 
in obtaining a copy of the transcript immediately for a fee should 
contact the Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc., at 202-347-3700, or 1-800-336-
6646. Two weeks after the post-forum meeting, the transcript will be 
available for free on the Commission's e-library system. Anyone without 
access to the Commission's Web site or who has questions about the 
technical conference should contact Norman Richardson at (202) 502-6219 
or via email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f796999982969b949f9685909284b791928594d9909881"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d7b6b9b9a2b6bbb4bfb6a5b0b2a497b1b2a5b4f9b0b8a1">[email protected]</span></a>.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please 
send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2e4f4d4d4b5d5d474c4742475a576e484b5c4d00494158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="09686a6a6c7a7a606b6065607d70496f6c7b6a276e667f">[email protected]</span></a> or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice), (202) 208-8659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with 
the required accommodations.

    Dated: March 12, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06203 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>