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

CERTIFICATION

I, Matt Mecke, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Asian Alliance Ventures, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.
4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15) for the registrant and we have:

a)     designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b)     evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)     presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)     all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)     any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Dated this 12thday of December, 2003.



| | /s/ Matt Mecke
Matt Mecke
Principal Executive Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------





---
William Samuel STAPLETON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D17-2846

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 23, 2018

William Samuel Stapleton, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

*530The petition for belated appeal is denied. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(5)(A).

Wetherell, Ray, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Respondent, and Seth O. Kankam, Appellant. Allstate Insurance Company, Proposed Additional Respondent.

[770 NYS2d 714]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, J.), entered February 6, 2003, which, after a framed issue hearing, granted a permanent stay of an uninsured motorist arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the stay of arbitration vacated and the petition dismissed. Appeal from or*419der, same court and Justice, entered January 8, 2003, which granted a temporary stay of arbitration and set the matter down for a framed issue hearing, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the subsequent order.

The 20-day time limit prescribed by CPLR 7503 (c) for serving a petition to stay an arbitration is jurisdictional, and, absent special circumstances not present here, courts have no jurisdiction to consider an untimely application *(see Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. [Coping],*179 AD2d 499, 500 [1992]). While an application for a stay on the ground that the parties never agreed to arbitrate may be entertained even after the 20-day period has expired *(see Matter of Matarasso [Continental Cas. Co.],*56 NY2d 264, 267 [1982]), this is not the case here, where an arbitration agreement exists, and the claim is simply that its conditions have not been satisfied *(see Matarasso*at 266; *see also Matter of Steck [State Farm Ins. Co.],*89 NY2d 1082, 1084 [1996]; *Travelers Indem. Co. v Balthazar,*224 AD2d 303 [1996]).

State Farm failed to serve its notice of petition to stay arbitration within 20 days of receiving the demand for arbitration, as required by CPLR 7503 (c). An addressee’s signature on a certified mail return receipt supports a finding that the addressee received the notice *(Matter of Halo v New York City Loft Bd.,*300 AD2d 77 [2002]), and the addressee’s claim that it never received the notice is insufficient to rebut the presumption of receipt raised by the proof of mailing *(8112-24 18th Ave. Realty Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,*240 AD2d 287 [1997]). Accordingly, the proof that State Farm received the demand for arbitration on August 15, 2002 stands unrebutted. Therefore, State Farm’s petition for a stay of arbitration, filed on September 10, 2002, was untimely, leaving the Supreme Court without jurisdiction to consider it, and requiring its dismissal. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Ellerin, JJ.
EX PARTE Ronnie A. WILLIAMS

CR-16-0725

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Zamba Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael H. Carrel, ExecutiveVice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1)              TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2)              Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certification as of the 13th day ofAugust 2003.
|   |   |   |   | /s/ Michael H. Carrel                                                    |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | Michael H. Carrel  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6162 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 569
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6162

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 23, 2024

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                           November 20, 2024

               Reported by Mr. Peters, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 379 North Oates Street in Dothan, Alabama, as the ``LaBruce `Bruce' 
                    Tidwell Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LABRUCE ``BRUCE'' TIDWELL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 379 North Oates Street in Dothan, Alabama, shall be known 
and designated as the ``LaBruce `Bruce' Tidwell Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``LaBruce 
`Bruce' Tidwell Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 569

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6162

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 379 North Oates Street in Dothan, Alabama, as the ``LaBruce `Bruce' 
                    Tidwell Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 20, 2024

                       Reported without amendment
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from financial
statements for the six month period ending March 31, 1996, 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-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,396
<SECURITIES>                                    21,278
<RECEIVABLES>                                      495
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,398
<PP&E>                                           4,143
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,474)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,305
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,500
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           183
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,639
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,305
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   523
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,243
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (184)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,281)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,281)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,281)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)
        

</TABLE>
Diviel POMA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-737

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018

Dan Hallenberg (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kayla H. McNab, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

*978Diviel Poma, the defendant, appeals the trial court's denial of the defendant's 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. The defendant argues several points, one of which was the failure of the trial court to have the defendant present for resentencing after it vacated two of the five counts upon which the defendant had been previously sentenced. The trial court determined that resentencing with the defendant present was not necessary because it was simply vacating the sentences on two of his counts. However, because the sentences imposed on the remaining counts were discretionary, the trial court was required to have the defendant present for resentencing with a corrected scoresheet. *See* *Jordan v. State*, 143 So.3d 335, 338 (Fla. 2014) ; *Fernandez v. State*, 199 So.3d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ; *Brown v. State*, 219 So.3d 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). On remand, the trial court is free to impose the same sentence or any legal sentence. *See* *State v. Davis*, 133 So.3d 1101, 1107 n.9 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (Emas, J.) ("At the new sentencing proceeding, the trial court is free to impose the same sentences it previously imposed on counts three and four."); *Sconiers v. State*, 734 So.2d 427, 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) ("On remand, the trial court is free to impose the same sentence."). We affirm in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing with the defendant present before the trial court.
Daniel Robert MILLER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2719

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 28, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The petition for belated appeal of the summary denial of petitioner's postconviction motion in the trial court is granted in circuit court case number CRC07-20914-CFANO for review of the trial court's order of April 24, 2017.

The circuit court clerk shall treat this order as a notice of appeal, promptly certify same and return it to this court as with any notice of appeal, and a new appellate case number will be assigned to this appeal and an acknowledgment letter will issue at that time. The summary record shall be transmitted to this court when the certified copy of this order is returned by the trial court clerk.

After a new appellate case number is assigned and an acknowledgment letter has issued, this court will issue an order advising the appellant of the due date of the optional initial brief.

CASANUEVA, CRENSHAW, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Csaba BOKROS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Frederick Timothy MAPP, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1048

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 24, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed as from nonappealable nonfinal orders. To the extent that the December 6, 2017, order attached to the notice of appeal may be reviewable under this court's appellate jurisdiction over nonfinal orders or by certiorari, the appeal is dismissed as untimely filed. The motions incorporated in the appellant's response to this court's order to show cause are denied as moot.

NORTHCUTT, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
#### Droke *v.*Rogers.

4-8026

198 S. W. 2d 180

Opinion delivered December 16, 1946.

*Vernon J. King*and *E. Newton Ellis,*for appellant.

*Schoonover*& *Steimel,*for appellee.

McHaN'by, Justice.

Appellant says: ‘ ‘ This is • an action to recover broker’s commissions alleged by appel-lee to have been earned on the sale of property of the appellant. We believe the record in this case shows the following to be the evidence given in the case.” He then *939sets out quite briefly what he says is the effect of the evidence. The pleadings have not been abstracted. The instructions are not set out or abstracted. The verdict and judgment are not set out. The motion for a new trial, if any, and the action of the court thereon, if it did act, are not mentioned in appellant’s abstract and brief.

So, at the outset, appellant is met by appellee’s motion to affirm the judgment for noncompliance with Rule IX, which motion must be and is sustained on the authority of numerous cases. See *Siloam Springs*v. *Broyles,*87 Ark. 202, 112 S. W. 219, and the many cases there cited; *Queen of Ark. Ins. Co.*v. *Royal,*102 Ark. 95, 143 S. W. 596; *Winn*v. *Schneider,*207 Ark. 605, 182 S. W. 2d 216.

Appellee has not supplied the deficiencies in appellant ’s abstract, and the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

         I, Jacky K. Anderson,  Chief Executive  Officer of Grayson  Bankshares,
Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Grayson Bankshares,
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 quarterly
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
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

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

         (a) Designed such disclosure  controls and  procedures,  or caused such
disclosure  controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to
ensure that  material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including  its
consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

         (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this quarterly 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 quarterly  report any change in the  registrant's
internal control over financial  reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to  materially  affect,   the  registrant's   internal  control  over  financial
reporting; and

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

         (a) All significant  deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal  control over financial  reporting which are reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and

         (b) Any fraud,  whether or not material,  that  involves  management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.



Date:  May 13, 2004                       /s/ Jacky K. Anderson
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          Jacky K. Anderson
                                          Chief Executive Officer
#### IN RE: James Eric JONES, Petitioner.

No. 17-1289

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 27, 2017

James Eric Jones, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, KEENAN,'and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Eric Jones petitions for a -writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. The present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the mandamus petition. We also deny Jones’ motion for bail without prejudice. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JODEN ROCCO,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 211 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.

Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Johnny HARRIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2348

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

Johnny Harris, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Charles THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-4039

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**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**The undersigned, Chief Executive Officer of W Holding Company, Inc. (the “Registrant”), herebycertifies that to the best of his knowledge, on the date hereof: (a) the Form 10-K of the Registrant for the Period Ended December 31, 2005, filedon the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and  (b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theRegistrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.      /s/FrankC. Stipes   Frank C. Stipes, Esq.Chairman of the Board andChief Executive OfficerApril 24, 2006