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

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, David Moskowitz, Chief Executive Officer of GenoMed, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of GenoMed, 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
small  business  issuer 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 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 quarterly 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

5. The small business  issuer's other  certifying  officer 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):

  a. all  significant deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses in the  design  or
operation of internal  controls 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: November 22, 2004

/s/ David Moskowitz
-----------------------
David Moskowitz
President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 10.39****Amendment Number 1 to Employment Agreement**This Amendment Number 1 (“Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement dated as of January 1, 2005between Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited, Crum & Forster Holding Inc. and Crum & Forster HoldingsCorp. and Joseph Braunstein is effective as of April 14, 2006 (“Effective Date”). 1. Capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribedto them in the Agreement.  2. A new Section 4.7 of the Agreement is hereby added to read in its entirety as follows:          4.7 Property Tax Equalization. From the Effective Date of this Amendment through theend of the Employment Period, C&F or the Companies shall reimburse Executive, on a net of incometaxes basis, for Executive’s property tax differential between Executive’s primary residence inPennsylvania and Executive’s primary residence in New Jersey. Executive’s property taxdifferential for each year shall be the excess, if any, of (a) over (b) or the pro rata portion ofsuch excess in respect of the year in which the New Jersey residence is purchased and in respect ofthe last year of the Employment Period if the Employment Period does not end on December 31: (a)the total annual property tax applicable to the Executive’s primary New Jersey residence in asingle family house for the first full year following the year in which such residence waspurchased, and (b) the total annual property tax applicable to the Executive’s primary Pennsylvaniaresidence in a single family house for the last full year prior to the year in which thePennsylvania primary residence was sold. 3. Unless specifically modified in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions contained inthe Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.**SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE**
 

 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first abovewritten.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Tamell CAMPBELL, Appellant.

No. ED 105046

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: February 6, 2018

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Kristina S. Olson, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Christine K. Lesicko, Asst. Attorney General, P. O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899.

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J. and Sherri B. Sullivan and Kurt S. Odenwald, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM.

Tamell Campbell appeals from the judgment entered on his convictions after a jury trial for murder in the first degree and armed criminal action. The trial court did not clearly err in sustaining the State's challenge to the defendant's peremptory strike under *Batson v. Kentucky* , 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). We affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, *121setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
STATE of North Carolina v. Cynthia Denise YORK

No. COA18-554

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 18, 2019

NO ERROR.
Exhibit 23.1



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-00405, No. 333-156433, No. 333-119661, No. 333-134208, No. 333-193075 and No. 333-196881) and Form S-3 (No. 333-184175, No. 333-187964, No. 333-195605 and No. 333-196880) of Uranium Resources, Inc. of our report dated March 19, 2015, relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Uranium Resources, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2014.

/s/ Hein & Associates LLP

Dallas, Texas

March 19, 2015
#### Paulette Shaw, Respondent, v Dolores Jacobs et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[719 NYS2d 709]

■ — In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Dolores Jacobs and Herbert Jacobs, Jr., appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated August 13, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict finding them 100% at fault in the happening of the accident, and the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $25,000 for past pain and suffering.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the facts and as an exercise of discretion, and a new trial on the issue of damages is granted, with costs to abide the event.

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the trial court properly submitted to the jury the issue of whether the plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see, Licari v Elliott,*57 NY2d 230). However, we agree with their contention that the jury verdict was inconsistent. The jury found that the plaintiff sustained an injury which resulted in a “permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system” (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]), yet failed to award any damages for future pain and suffering. The failure to award any future damages cannot be reconciled with the finding of permánent injury *(see, Sescila v Garine,*225 AD2d 684; *Laylon v Shaver,*187 AD2d 983; *see also, Cochetti v Gralow,*192 AD2d 974). Accordingly, a new trial on the issue of damages is warranted.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, Acting P. J., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

PAUL RICHARD BUTTS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-10331 

D.C. No. 2:05-cr-01127-DGC-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 12, 2022**

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. 

Paul Richard Butts appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges 

the revocation of supervised release, as well as the three-month sentence and 

lifetime term of supervised release imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Butts’s counsel has filed a brief stating that 

* 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

JUL 18 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-10331 

there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of 

record. We have provided Butts the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. 

No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.
SERVED: APRIL 22, 2011 

R'-^RTMENTGF 

"""ORWION 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION , /^ f OPERATiGl '~> 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 7i i .r.'n?:; A C- C 

IN THE MATTER OF 

EMPIRE FLIGHT ACADEMY 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0290 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2009EAl 10074) has been assigned 

to the undersigned. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding 

shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons on the attached 

Service List. 

Lonnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative 

Attachment - Service List 
"mwsw 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0290 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

ORIGINAl. 4i(|aNE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGG-43t) 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2Wl6(K)^ 

Gregory S. Winton, Respondent's Counsel 

The Aviation Law Firm 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville MD 20850 

TEL: 301-294-8550 

FAX: 301-294-2525 

Zachary M. Berman, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AEA-7 

Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza, Room 561 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3258 

FAX: 718-533-5699 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El 2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person ott&eaB^ted courier, us^ Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenw^S.^-PWrolt^^WilsJit Building—Suife 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. V.
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 of Texas United Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L. Don Stricklin, President and Chief Executive 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 operating results of the Company.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ L. Don Stricklin                 
|L. Don Stricklin                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|August 13, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1730

BOBBY LEE MCARTHUR; DEBORAH E. MCARTHUR,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

ROBERT W. CLARK; DEBRA L. CLARK; FRED W. LEE,

JR.; BARBARA OSIE LEE; JAMES ROBERT LEE; CAROL

E. LEE; JOHN HENRY LEE; PATRICIA SMITH LEE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief

District Judge. (5:05-cv-00634-FL)

Submitted: March 16, 2007 Decided: April 17, 2007

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Murrel Cooper, COOPER, DAVIS & COOPER, Fayetteville, North

Carolina, for Appellants. H. Terry Hutchens, HUTCHENS, SENTER &

BRITTON, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellees Robert W.

Clark and Debra L. Clark. Fred W. Lee, Jr., Barbara Osie Lee,

James Robert Lee, Carol E. Lee, John Henry Lee, Patricia Smith Lee,

Appellees Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Lee McArthur and Deborah E. McArthur appeal the

district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss the

complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and

12(b)(7), and denying the McArthurs’ motion for preliminary

injunction as moot. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See McArthur v. Clark, No. 5:05-cv-00634-FL

(E.D.N.C. May 24, 2006). 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
| (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. |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                               |   |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|                               |   |   |   |
| Dated: November      19, 2008 |   |   |   | By:    |   | /s/ Eddie Vaksar |
|                               |   |   |   |   |   | Chief      Executive Officer |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeanette M. Medinilla, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 907]

Appeal from judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered January 3, 2000, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Upon her plea of guilty of the crime of scheme to defraud in the first degree, defendant was sentenced to five years of probation and ordered to pay restitution. Less than one month later, a violation of probation report was filed alleging that defendant had been charged with a number of new crimes. Defendant entered a plea of guilty of violating a condition of her probation and she was ultimately sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of lYs to 4 years. Although defendant challenges the sentence as being unduly harsh and excessive, our review of the record reveals neither an abuse of discretion on the part of County Court nor any extraordinary circumstances warranting our intervention *(see, People v Corpin,*269 AD2d 622, *lv denied*95 NY2d 795). Defendant has a substantial history of criminal conduct and an inability to abide by the conditions of probation. Her belated claim of mental illness and addiction is unsupported by the record despite the opportunity to substantiate the claim afforded by the court.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Shawn PIERCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106065

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: June 12, 2018

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Samuel E. Buffaloe, 1000 West Nifong, Bldg. 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203.

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Shaun J. Mackelprang, Asst. Attorney General, P. O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899.

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J. and Sherri B. Sullivan and Kurt S. Odenwald, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM.

Shawn Pierce appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm.

*924An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5379 

To authorize the Secretary of the Army to acquire land for expansion of 

Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, subject to certain conditions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2006 

Mrs. MUSGRAVE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Army to acquire land 

for expansion of Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, subject 

to certain conditions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE LAND FOR EXPAN4 SION OF PINON CANYON MANEUVER SITE. 

5 (a) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of the Army may, 

6 subject to subsections (b) and (c), after consulting with 

7 the congressional defense committees, and using funds 

8 previously appropriated for such purpose, acquire for not 

9 more than fair market value any and all right, title, and 

10 interest in and to one or more parcels of real property 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5379 IH

1 located near Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (in this section 

2 referred to as the ‘‘Site’’) for the purpose of expanding 

3 the Site. 

4 (b) LIMITATION ON EXPANSION.—The Secretary of 

5 the Army may not acquire real property under subsection 

6 (a) to expand the Site if such acquisition would require 

7 the condemnation of such property, the seizure by a Fed8 eral entity of any private property, or the exercise by a 

9 Federal or State governmental entity of eminent domain 

10 authority. 

11 (c) STUDY REQUIRED.—The Secretary of the Army 

12 may not acquire real property under subsection (a) until 

13 the Secretary has submitted to the congressional defense 

14 committees a study on— 

15 (1) the economic impact on local communities 

16 of such acquisition; 

17 (2) the environmental impact of expanding the 

18 Site pursuant to subsection (a); and 

19 (3) the costs associated with potential environ20 mental restoration, waste management, and other 

21 environmental activities in connection with such ac22 quisition and expansion. 

23 (d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

24 (1) The term ‘‘congressional defense commit25 tees’’ means the Committee on Armed Services and 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5379 IH

1 the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and 

2 the Committee on Armed Services and the Com3 mittee on Appropriations of the House of Represent4 atives. 

5 (2) The term ‘‘fair market value’’ means, with 

6 respect to a parcel of land, the value of such parcel 

7 as determined by an appraisal performed by an inde8 pendent, certified appraiser in accordance with the 

9 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Prac10 tice. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that a planning meeting and community forum of the New Jersey Advisory Committee will convene at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, May 8, 2009, at the Legislative Annex of the State House, 152 West State Street, Room L6 (first floor), Trenton, New Jersey 08625. The purpose of the planning meeting is to review the format for conducting the community forum. The purpose of the community forum is to discuss two topics: immigration and education. The immigration review will begin at approximately 9:30 a.m. The education review will begin at approximately 2 p.m. 

                    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The address is U.S. Comission on Civil Rights, Eastern Regional Office, 624 Ninth Street, NW., Suite 740, Washington, DC 20425. Persons wishing to email their comments, present their comments at the meeting, or who desire additional information should contact Alfreda Greene, Secretary, at 202-376-7533 or by e-mail to:                     *ero@usccr.gov*.                 

Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting. 

                    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site,                     *http://www.usccr.gov*, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above e-mail or street address.                 

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA. 

Dated in Washington, DC, March 11, 2009. 

Christopher Byrnes, 

Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.

[FR Doc. E9-5664 Filed 3-13-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P