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

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael L. Campbell, Chief Executive Officer of Regal Entertainment Group, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Regal Entertainment Group;

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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:



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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



Date:
November 8, 2005

| |  | By: |  | /s/MICHAEL L. CAMPBELLMichael L. Campbell
Chief Executive Officer
| |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, D. James (Jim) MacKenzie, certify that;

(1)         I have reviewed this report on Form10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 of Nordic Nickel Ltd.;

(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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

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

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

Date:       May 18, 2007

/s/ D. James (Jim) MacKenzie

___________________________________ 

By:       D. James (Jim ) MacKenzie
EXHIBIT 32.1







CERTIFICATION OF


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Balqon Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge:




1.           the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 15, 2010
By:/s/ BALWINDER SAMRA


Balwinder Samra


President and Chief Executive Officer


(principal executive officer)







Dated:  November 15, 2010
By:/s/ ROBERT J. MIRANDA


Robert J. Miranda


Chief Financial Officer


(principal financial and accounting officer)




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LARRY GENE HEGGEM, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

SNOHOMISH COUNTY CORRECTIONS; 

et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35464 

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01333-RSM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2017**

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Larry Gene Heggem, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the 

district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force

based on an incident that occurred in the Snohomish County Jail. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s

 

* 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 3 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-35464 

summary judgment and its qualified immunity determinations. Furnace v. 

Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013). We reverse and remand.

The district court granted summary judgment on Heggem’s excessive force 

claim against defendant Eichelberger on the basis of qualified immunity, 

concluding that it would not have been clear to every reasonable official that lifting 

Heggem’s legs in connection with a control hold was unconstitutional. However, 

Heggem presented evidence that despite his compliance and cooperation, 

Eichelberger violently applied a control hold and forcibly disrobed Heggem

causing serious injury. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to 

Heggem, and under any potentially applicable standard, Heggem raised a triable 

dispute as to whether Eichelberger’s use of force was excessive. See Martinez v. 

Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements of excessive force claim 

under the Eighth Amendment standard applicable to prisoners); see also Kingsley 

v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015) (elements of excessive force claim 

under the Fourteenth Amendment standard applicable to pretrial detainees); 

Furnace, 705 F.3d at 1026 (a court reviewing a summary judgment motion must 

“assume the truth of the evidence set forth by the nonmoving party”). We reverse 

summary judgment for Eichelberger, and remand for further proceedings as to 

Heggem’s excessive force claim against defendants Eichelberger, Nicholas and 

Miller.
3 15-35464 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Heggem’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 18), motion for 

additional authority in support of claims (Docket Entry No. 79) and request for oral 

argument (Docket Entry No. 26) are denied.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Barry Lamperd, President and a director of Lamperd Less Lethal Inc. (Principal Executive Officer), certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Lamperd Less Lethal 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 company 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 company 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 company, 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 company'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 company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company'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 company's auditors and the audit committee of the company'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 company'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 company's internal control over financial reporting. 

Date:  November 14, 2006

 

/s/ Barry Lamperd                                                          

Barry Lamperd

President and Director

(Principal Executive Officer)
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Rebecca A. MATTHEWS, Appellant.

WD 80284

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: JANUARY 30, 2018

Gregory L. Barnes, Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Marsha Irene Stiles, Springfield, MO, Counsel for Appellant.

Before Division Two: Anthony Rex Gabbert, Presiding Judge, Thomas H. Newton, Judge, and Gary D. Witt, Judge

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

Rebecca A. Matthews appeals from a judgment convicting her of three counts of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree pursuant to Section 568.045, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2009. We affirm. Rule 30.25(b).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney Robinson, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 59]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Straus, J., at hearing; Gerald Sheindlin, J., at plea and sentence), rendered June 4, 1998, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 1 year, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. While patrolling in an area with a very high incidence of cab robberies, at approximately 4:30 a.m., the police observed defendant hail a cab and then lean against the opened back door and *324engage in a heated argument with the driver. Defendant then pushed off the cab with one hand still on the roof as he reached inside his jacket where the officers could see a bulge. The driver immediately drove off at a high rate of speed, with the back door still open. When the officers approached defendant and asked him what had happened, he did not answer. In order to protect themselves, one of the officers touched the bulge in defendant’s jacket and felt the weapon, which was then removed by the other police officer. Under the totality of these circumstances, the officers possessed the necessary reasonable suspicion to conduct the minimally intrusive, self-protective touch of the bulge to determine whether defendant was armed *(see, People v Moret,*240 AD2d 321, *lv denied*90 NY2d 908; *see also, People v Taveras,*207 AD2d 306, *lv denied 84*NY2d 940; *People v Clemente,*195 AD2d 300, *lv denied*82 NY2d 715). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.
STATE of North Carolina v. Shannon ALCON

No. COA19-22

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 6, 2019

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Garcia, Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 510]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Obus, J.), rendered May 25, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

At the instant retrial, at which defendant did not testify, the court properly permitted the People to introduce a portion of defendant’s testimony at his first trial, and to argue that this testimony was false and that it evinced defendant’s consciousness of guilt. This testimony was probative *(see People v Bennett,*79 NY2d 464, 470 [1992]), and the People introduced independent evidence of its falsity that was distinct from the evidence they presented to establish defendant’s guilt of criminal sale of a controlled substance, the only charge upon which he was being retried *(see People v Abdul-Malik,*61 AD2d 657, 661-663 [1978]).

Defendant did not preserve his argument that, in view of his acquittal of third-degree drug possession at his first trial, the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred certain police testimony *151received at his second trial, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the error, if any, was harmless *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
Martha THOMAS, Respondent, v. The STATE of Missouri, et al., Appellants.

WD 80733

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: February 27, 2018

Mark A. Ludwig, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Emily A. Dodge, Jefferson City, for Appellants.

Before Division One: Thomas H. Newton, Presiding Judge, Victor C. Howard, Judge and Karen King Mitchell, Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

The State of Missouri appeals the judgment of the trial court granting Martha Thomas a new trial. It presents five points on appeal arguing that the trial court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict and in granting Thomas's motion for a new trial after jury verdict. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT
31.2








Certification
of Principal Accounting Officer of ULURU Inc.


Pursuant
to Rule 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) under


the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as Amended





I,
Terrance K. Wallberg, certify that:





1.           I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ULURU 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 registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this 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
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 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: August 8,
      2008
            
            /s/ Terrance K. WallbergTerrance
      K. WallbergVice
      President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher Lee NEAL

No. 102P19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2019

Christopher Lee Neal, For Neal, Christopher Lee.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, H. Sean Boone, Assistant District Attorney, Jocelyn C. Wright, Attorney at Law, Patrick Nadolski, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 26th of March 2019 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Alamance County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of June 2019."
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 11346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5587]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


South Gifford Pinchot National Forest Resource Advisory Committee 
Meeting Notice

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The South Gifford Pinchot National Forest Resource Advisory 
Committee will meet on Monday, April 20, 2009, at the Columbia Gorge 
Riverside Lodge 200 SW Cascade Avenue, Stevenson, Washington. The 
meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and continue until 4 p.m. The purpose of 
the meeting is to: Elect a chairperson and vice-chair, propose an 
indirect project percentage, receive an overview of Title II 
accomplishments, and make recommendations on approximately 60 proposals 
for Title II funding of projects under the Secure Rural Schools and 
County Self-Determination Act of 2000.
    All South Gifford Pinchot National Forest Resource Advisory 
Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are 
encouraged to attend. The ``open forum'' provides opportunity for the 
public to bring issues, concerns, and discussion topics to the Advisory 
Committee. The ``open forum'' is scheduled to occur at 9:10 a.m. on 
April 20. Interested speakers will need to register prior to the open 
forum period. The committee welcomes the public's written comments on 
committee business at any time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions regarding this 
meeting to Roger Peterson, Public Affairs Specialist, at (360) 891-
5007, or write Forest Headquarters Office, Gifford Pinchot National 
Forest, 10600 NE. 51st Circle, Vancouver, WA 98682.

    Dated: March 6, 2009.
Janine Clayton,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E9-5587 Filed 3-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
## NO. 12

- 09

- 00 241

- C V

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE ESTATE OF ' APPEAL FROM THE

LINARD VIRGIL HICKMAN,

DECEASED ' COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF

' ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

App ellants and Appellee have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal. In their

motion, the parties state that they have settled their dispute and no longer wish to pursue

the appeal. Because the parties have met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appella te

Procedure 42.1(a)(1), the motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

Opinion delivered April 7, 2010

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)