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

EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Harry Miller, certify that:

I have reviewed this annual report of Preferential Equities Corp.;
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 period covered by this report;
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;
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)) and  internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules  13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have: 
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;
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
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

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

Date: March 30, 2009/s/ Harry Miller  Harry Miller, Chief Executive Officer
SLIP OP. 01-46 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE BEFORE: HONORABLE JAMES L. WATSON, SENIOR JUDGE -------------------------------------------------------------X MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL : COURT NO. 87-07-00778 CO., LTD., : Plaintiff, : v. : UNITED STATES, : Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------X JUDGMENT In this case, issue was joined on October 19, 1987. No action has been taken by plaintiff to prosecute this case since December 1, 1987, on which date the plaintiff stipulated with defendant to a protective order. Accordingly, this action is dismissed for lack of prosecution.

DATED: April 17, 2001 ______________________________ New York, New York James L. Watson, Senior Judge
TE CONNECTIVITY LTD.


        The
Corporation will furnish without charge to each shareholder who so requests a copy of the powers, designations, preferences and relative, participating, optional or other special
rights of each class of shares or series thereof, and the qualifications, limitations, or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights. 



        The
following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or
regulations: 

 






 



															
	TEN COM	 	—	 	as tenants in common	 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT	 	—	 	           	 	Custodian	 	              
	TEN ENT	 	—	 	as tenants by the entireties	 	 	 	 	 	(Cust)	 	 	 	(Minor)
	JT TEN	 	—	 	as joint tenants with right of	 	 	 	 	 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors
	 	 	 	 	survivorship and not as tenants	 	 	 	 	 	Act	 	                 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	in common	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	(State)	 	 




 

 Additional
abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 


        FOR VALUE RECEIVED                          hereby sell, assign and transfer unto

 






 



	
	 

	Please Insert Social Security or Other

Identifying Number of Assignee




 


 






 



					
	







 
	






  (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS OF ASSIGNEE)
	







 
	







 
	                                        
       








 	 	 Shares
	 of the registered stock represented by the within Certificate and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
	                                        
   







 	 	 Attorney
	 to transfer the said registered shares on the books of the within-named Company with full power of substitution in the premises.



 


 






 



					
	Dated	 	







 	 	 



 


 






 



			
	 	 	







 
	 	 	        NOTICE: The Signature to this assignment must correspond with the

name as written upon the face of the Certificate in every particular,

without alteration or enlargement, or any change whatever.




 


 






 



			
	Signature(s) Guaranteed:	 	






  THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE

GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND

LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN

APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM),

PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keevus WEEKS, a/k/a Shake, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4618

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Lary D. Garrett, GARRETT & GARRETT, Moorefield, West Virginia, for Appellant. Betsy Steinfeld Jividen, Acting United States Attorney, Zelda E. Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarks-burg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, THACKER', and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Keevus Weeks appeals his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribute heroin and oxyco-done, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012); distribution of oxycodone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012); and two counts of distribution of oxycodone within 1000 feet of a protected location, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 860(a) (2012). On appeal, Weeks argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial after a Government witness testified that Weeks had been arrested for violating parole. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We review a district court’s denial of a motion for a mistrial for abuse of discretion, *United States v. Wallace,*515 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 2008), and we will disturb the court’s decision “only under the most extraordinary of circumstances,” *United States v. Dorlouis,*107 F.3d 248, 257 (4th Cir. 1997), To establish an abuse of discretion, a defendant must show prejudice. *Wallace,*515 F.3d at 330.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Weeks’ motion for a mistrial. Weeks’ own counsel elicited the information during cross-examination, despite the court’s warning during the pretrial' conference that open-ended questions might reveal Weeks’ prior incarceration. Weeks also cannot establish that the witness’ isolated comment prejudiced the jury. The Government did not mention the comment, and the court advised the jurors that they may not convict a defendant simply because they believe he might have committed similar, acts in the past. Moreover, the evidence of Weeks’ guilt was overwhelming, as multiple witnesses testified regarding Weeks’ participation in the extensive drug-trafficking enterprise, and the Government published recordings of controlled' buys involving Weeks. *See*
      *830
      *United States v. Dorsey,*45 F.3d 809, 817-18 (4th Cir. 1995) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for mistrial when Government witness mentioned defendant’s criminal record in testimony “in response to questions by *defense*counsel ... and no plotting by the government that he sneak in the improper testimony was shown,” when there was “overwhelming evidence” of defendant’s guilt, and when court provided curative instructions).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
EXHIBIT 31



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED



I, Joseph R. Rozelle, certify that:



1.   I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Pan Asian Corporation;



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 period 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.   The registrant'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 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 report is being prepared;



(b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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(s) 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:  November 24, 2009



/s/    Joseph R. Rozelle

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

Joseph R. Rozelle

Principal Executive Officer

and Principal Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,776,608
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,009,312
<ALLOWANCES>                                    21,516
<INVENTORY>                                  1,097,283
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,447,079
<PP&E>                                       3,763,685
<DEPRECIATION>                                 890,574
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,151,377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          620,775
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,898,150
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,151,377
<SALES>                                      6,194,689
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,194,689
<CGS>                                        2,948,498
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,948,498
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                92,971
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             314,166
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                716,925
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   716,925
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        




</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Josh T. WIMER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4508

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 1, 2018

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Andrea L. Harris, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Rick Mountcastle, Acting United States Attorney, Heather L. Carlton, Assistant United States Attorney, Connor Kelley, Third Year Law Intern, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Following a bench trial conducted by a federál magistrate judge, Josh T. Wimer was convicted of one count of driving a motor vehicle with a revoked driver’s license, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.54(d), incorporating Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-301, and sentenced to one year of probation. The district court affirmed the conviction. On appeal to this court, Wimer contends that when he admitted that he was driving on a suspended license that he was seized by a United States Forest Service Ranger, and that the magistrate judge erred in denying his motion to suppress his statement to the ranger. Finding no error, we affirm.

The main issue on appeal is whether the magistrate judge erred in denying Wimer’s motion to suppress the statement he made to the Forest Service Ranger admitting that his driver’s license was revoked. Wimer contends that the encounter was not consensual. When considering the denial of a motion to suppress, this court reviews the district court’s or magistrate judge’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. *United States v. Giddins,*858 F.3d 870, 878-79 *127(4th Cir. 2017). This court construes the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, in this case, the Government. *United States v. Stover,*808 F.3d 991, 994 (4th Cir. 2015). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, including the district court’s memorandum on appeal, and conclude that the magistrate judge did not err in denying the motion to suppress and, consequently, the court did not err in affirming the misdemeanor conviction.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade--quately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Exhibit 32.2


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 Annual Report of Triangle Capital Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven C. Lilly, Chief Financial Officer 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:


(1) The Report fully complies 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 operations of the Company.





/s/ STEVEN C. LILLYSteven C. LillyChief Financial OfficerFebruary 24, 2016
#### ZANE CAMERON PETERSON *v.*VERNA J. PETERSON

(AC 20879)

Mihalakos, Dranginis and Daly, Js.

Argued May 4

officially released June 5, 2001

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEUDLE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMOQUEST
CORPORATION'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 29, 1997
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>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                         199,821
<SECURITIES>                                     7,477
<RECEIVABLES>                                   88,856
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,210
<INVENTORY>                                     50,491
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               355,062
<PP&E>                                          65,677
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,923
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 563,319
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          108,997
<BONDS>                                        104,344
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           502
<OTHER-SE>                                     329,054
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   563,319
<SALES>                                         78,198
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                78,198
<CGS>                                           39,005
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,005
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,938
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   177
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,847
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,393
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,117
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,276
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,276
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        


</TABLE>
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6297 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6297 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Iran Sanctions Exten3 sion Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF IRAN SANCTIONS ACT OF 

5 1996. 

6 Section 13(b) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 

7 (Public Law 104–172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended 

8 by striking ‘‘December 31, 2016’’ and inserting ‘‘Decem9 ber 31, 2026’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 15, 

2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6297 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.
#### CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GARGOYLES, INC.; John F. Curran, III, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 17-1618

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 25, 2017

Decided: November 2, 2017

John F. Curran, III, Appellant Pro Se. Ashley Elisabeth Eiler, John E. Howell, William E. Smith, WILEY REIN, LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Before KING, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Proceeding pro se, John F. Curran, III, seeks to appeal on behalf of himself and Gargoyles, Inc., the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motion to vacate judgment and stay proceedings against Gargoyles, Inc. Curran has also moved on appeal to stay proceedings and represent Gargoyles, Inc. However, Gargoyles, Inc., may only proceed in federal court through licensed counsel. *See Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council,*506 U.S. 194, 201-03, 113 S.Ct. 716, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993); *In re Under Seal,*749 F.3d 276, 290 n.17 (4th Cir. 2014). We therefore dismiss the appeal as to Gargoyles, Inc. As to Curran, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny his pending motions and affirm the district court’s order. *See Continental Cas. Co. v. Gargoyles, Inc.,*No. 1:14-cv-01183-JFM (D. Md. May 2, 2017). 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.

*DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART*