alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**
****
**Certification of CEO Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act****Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 as Adopted Pursuant to****Section 302**
**of the****Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Brian P. Burns, certify that:

1.  I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of BF Enterprises, Inc.;

2.  Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the 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 small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

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

(b)  Evaluated
the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)  Disclosed
in this report any change in the registrant’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.  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 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 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.

BF
      ENTERPRISES, INC.Date:
      May 12, 2005
    By:
    /s/ 
      Brian P. BurnsChairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer
<PAGE>   1




                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference of our reports, dated January
28, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule of Quaker State Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December
31, 1996 and 1995, and for the three years in the period ended December 31,
1996, which reports are incorporated by reference or included in this annual
report on Form 10-K, in the following documents:

1.   Registration Statements No. 33-20416 and 333-06291 on Form S-8 for the
     Quaker State Corporation Thrift and Stock Purchase Plan, filed under the
     Securities Act of 1993, as amended, and the Prospectus used in connection
     with such Registrant Statement;

2.   Registration Statement No. 33-7163 on Form S-8 for the 1986
     Stock Option Plan of Quaker State Corporation, filed under the Securities
     Act of 1933, as amended, and the Prospectus used in connection with such
     Registration Statements;

3.   Registration Statement No. 33-65862 on Form S-8 for the Baum Employment
     Agreement, filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended;

4.   Registration Statement No. 33-53605 on Form S-8 for the 1994 Non-Employee
     Directors' Stock Option Plan, filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as
     amended, and the Prospectus used in connection with such Registration
     Statement;

5.   Registration Statements No. 33-53617 and 333-16237 on Form S-8 for the
     1994 Stock Incentive Plan, filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as
     amended, and the Prospectus used in connection with such Registration
     Statement;

6.   Registration Statement No. 333-05929 on Form S-8 for the 1996 Directors'
     Fee Plan, filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the
     Prospectus used in connection with such Registration Statement; and

7.   Registration Statement No. 333-13893 on Form S-3 for the registration of
     2,024,989 shares of Capital Stock, filed under the Securities Act of 1933,
     as amended, and the Prospectus used in connection with such Registration
     Statement.

We also Consent to the references to our firm under the caption "Experts" in
the Prospectuses used in connection with Registration Statements No. 33-20416,
333-06291, 33-7163, 33-65862, 33-53605, 33-53617, 333-05929, and
333-13893 solely as it relates to the current financial statements being
incorporated by reference.



Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

Dallas, Texas
March 27, 1997
# C_2021462EN.01005001.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/50

---

Action brought on 13 September 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-575/21)

(2021/C 462/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain), Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design No 1 431 829-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2021 in Case R 1006/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | alter the contested decision to:






  — | allow the applicant’s appeal, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision to:

—

allow the applicant’s appeal,

| — | dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicants’ applications to declare the contested design invalid, |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicants’ applications to declare the contested design invalid,

| — | order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division;

| — | order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s fees and costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s fees and costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 24 March 2021, Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (T-515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 24 March 2021, Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (T-515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155);

| — | Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172);

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Misinterpretation of patent application EP 3 005 948 A2 and the applicant’s multiple design application No. 1 431 829-0001-0010. |
| --- | --- |

—

Misinterpretation of patent application EP 3 005 948 A2 and the applicant’s multiple design application No. 1 431 829-0001-0010.

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                       EXHIBIT 5

                                 March 19, 1996


Plains Resources Inc.
1600 Smith, Suite 1500
Houston, Texas 77002

Gentlemen:

  I have acted as counsel for Plains Resources Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), in connection with the registration under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the "Act"), of 798,143 shares of the Company's common stock,
$.10 par value (the "Common Stock"), to be offered upon the terms and subject to
the conditions set forth in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (the
"Registration Statement") relating thereto filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

  In connection therewith, I have examined originals or copies certified or
otherwise identified to my satisfaction of the Certificate of Incorporation of
the Company, the Bylaws of the Company, corporate proceedings with respect to
the registration of the shares of Common Stock and such other documents and
instruments as I have deemed necessary or appropriate for the expression of the
opinions expressed herein.

  Based on the foregoing, I am of the opinion that:

        1.  The Company has been duly organized and is validly existing in good
            standing under the laws of the State of Delaware.

        2.  The 798,143 shares of Common Stock proposed to be sold pursuant to
            the Registration Statement have been duly and validly issued and are
            fully paid and nonassessable.

  I hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement and to the reference to me under the caption "Legal
Opinion" in the Prospectus included in the Registration Statement.

                                         Very truly yours,
                        
                        
                                         /s/ Michael R. Patterson
                                         ---------------------------------
                                         Michael R. Patterson
                                         Vice President and General Counsel
ph
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                         435,746
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,898,082
<ALLOWANCES>                                    57,957
<INVENTORY>                                  2,639,547
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,159,083
<PP&E>                                       2,633,112
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,170,372
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,958,292
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,792,113
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        43,541
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,062,928
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,958,292
<SALES>                                      5,514,687
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,171,243
<CGS>                                        4,070,425
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,402,348
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,681,028
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 80,736
<INCOME-TAX>                                    42,619
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             38,117
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    38,117
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022148EN.01001501.xml

| 4.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 26 January 2022 — VZ v CA

(Case C-53/22)

(2022/C 148/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VZ

Defendant: CA

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665 (1) preclude a competitor who is definitively excluded from a contractor selection procedure from being denied the possibility of a review of the refusal to annul the award, when it is intended to show that the successful tenderer, and all other shortlisted competitors, are guilty of grave professional misconduct, consisting of having entered into anticompetitive agreements which were determined by a court only after the competitor had been excluded, in order to have the opportunity to participate in a rerun of the procedure? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665 (1) preclude a competitor who is definitively excluded from a contractor selection procedure from being denied the possibility of a review of the refusal to annul the award, when it is intended to show that the successful tenderer, and all other shortlisted competitors, are guilty of grave professional misconduct, consisting of having entered into anticompetitive agreements which were determined by a court only after the competitor had been excluded, in order to have the opportunity to participate in a rerun of the procedure?

| 2. | Does Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665 and the principles [of European Union law] on the safeguarding of competition preclude an administrative court from the scrutiny of a review, requested by a competitor definitively excluded from a contractor selection procedure, of the contracting authority’s refusal to review measures which it adopted itself, with regard to the admission of and award to competitors who have entered into anticompetitive agreements, determined by a court, in the same sector as the tender procedure? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 1(3) of Directive 89/665 and the principles [of European Union law] on the safeguarding of competition preclude an administrative court from the scrutiny of a review, requested by a competitor definitively excluded from a contractor selection procedure, of the contracting authority’s refusal to review measures which it adopted itself, with regard to the admission of and award to competitors who have entered into anticompetitive agreements, determined by a court, in the same sector as the tender procedure?

---

(1)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).

---
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of UST Liquidating Corporation. (the Company) on Form
10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Marc A. Weisman, Co-Chairman of Board of Directors of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company. /s/ Marc A. WeismanMarc A. WeismanCo-Chairman of Board of DirectorsMay 16, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5704]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-5478-2]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared February 17, 1997 Through 
February 21, 1997 pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), 
under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the 
National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of 
EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at 
(202) 564-7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft 
environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 
5, 1996 (61 FR 15251).

Draft EISs

    ERP No. D-FHW-G40144-AR Rating LO, US 71 Relocation, Construction 
extending from US 70 in DeQueen to I-40 near Alma, AR, Funding and COE 
Section 404 Permit, Sevier, Polk, Scott, Sebastian and Crawford 
Counties, AR.
    Summary: EPA had no objection to the selection of the preferred 
alternative described in the draft EIS. ERP No. D-FHW-G50008-00 Rating 
LO, Great River Bridge, Construction, US 65 in Arkansas to MS-8 in 
Mississippi, Funding, COE Section 404 Permit and US Coast Guard Bridge 
Permit, Desha and Arkansas Counties, AR and Bolivar County, MS.
    Summary: EPA had no objection to the proposed bridged river 
crossing. EPA supports the selection of an alternative alignment south 
of Big Island as the preferred route.
    ERP No. D-NPS-K65194-AS Rating LO, National Park of American Samoa, 
Implementation, General Management Plan, Islands of Tutulla, Ta'u and 
Ofu, Territory of American Samoa.
    Summary: EPA had no objection to the action, however additional 
clarification was requested to be included in the final EIS.

    Dated: March 4, 1997.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 97-5704 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
# C_2021182EN.01006302.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/63

---

Action brought on 19 March 2021 — Union Syndicale Solidaires des SDIS de France et DOM/TOM v Commission

(Case T-152/21)

(2021/C 182/86)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Union Syndicale Solidaires des services départementaux d’incendie et de secours (SDIS) de France et DOM/TOM (Nîmes, France) (represented by: O. Coudray, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | order the European Union (European Commission) to pay the applicant EUR 10 000 in compensation for the non-pecuniary harm which it suffered, with interest as set by the European Central Bank for capital refinancing operations, increased by three and a half percentage points; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Union (European Commission) to pay the applicant EUR 10 000 in compensation for the non-pecuniary harm which it suffered, with interest as set by the European Central Bank for capital refinancing operations, increased by three and a half percentage points;

| — | hold the European Union (European Commission) liable for all the costs, in the amount of EUR 6 600. |
| --- | --- |

—

hold the European Union (European Commission) liable for all the costs, in the amount of EUR 6 600.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action for damages, the applicant criticises the Commission for not having responded for over a year and a half to the negligence complaint which it brought in respect of the French Republic. The applicant also complains that the Commission did not inform it promptly of the state of the assessment which it carried out and did not take a position on the complaint within a reasonable period of time. According to the applicant, the Commission therefore acted unlawfully, such as to give rise to non-contractual liability of the European Union.

---
Exhibit 32.2

      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


      Pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  1350, the undersigned  officer
of  Harold's Stores, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby  certifies
that  the  Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q  for  the
quarter ended October 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies
with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)  or  15(d),   as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and  that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents,  in
all  material respects, the financial condition and  results
of operations of the Company.

Date:  December 14, 2004      /s/Jodi L. Taylor
                              Jodi L. Taylor
                              Chief Financial Officer
Cost of NIST Cylinder Analysis , Report , Cylinder Demurrage and 1 - Way Shipping Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837

March 3 , 20 10 The cost to anal yz e 60 tri
- blend (SO2, NO and CO2 with N2 balance gas) EPA Protocol gas cy linders and produce an anal ys is report in a recent Interagency Agreement with the National Institute of Standards and Technology was $100,000. This equates to approximately $1, 6 67 per cy linder. Average one
- way shipping costs are approximately $ 91 per cy linder, and average demurrage (rental) is approximately $7 per cy linder per month from a 2009 EPA Protocol gas audit. Total cost of NIST anal ys is, report, six months cy linder demurrage and shipping back to EPA Protocol gas production site is approximately $1,800. Accessing dockets: Publicly available docket materials are available either electronicall y in www.regulations.gov or in hard cop y at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 C onstitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20 460. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday , excluding legal holiday s. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566
- 1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566
- 1742
.