alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**Rule 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION**
I, Donald L. Denney, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of MonarchCommunity Bancorp, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have;
a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluations; and c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 15, 2004 By:  /s/ Donald L. Denney    Donald L. Denney    President and Chief Executive Officer  
 16
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Matter of the Marriage of Richard 

Paul Schwalenberg and Karen Zimmerman 

Schwalenberg

No. 06-16-00036-CV

Appeal from the 62nd District Court of 

Franklin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 11723). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the motion of the appellant to 

dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED OCTOBER 14, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**Exhibit 31.1**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. SECTION 7241, AS ADOPTED 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE 

SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002 

I, J. Russell Porter, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gastar Exploration, Ltd. (the “Registrant”); 

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, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation 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 definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and we have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theRegistrant’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 occurredduring 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 controlover financial reporting; and 

5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof 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 arereasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

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

Date: May 12, 2006
Amendment No. 4 to the Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. 401(k)



 Exhibit 10.19H 
 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE 
 PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES
USA, INC. 
 401(k) AND MATCHING PLAN 
 (Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2008) 
 THIS
FOURTH AMENDMENT is made and entered into by Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. (the “Company”): 
 WITNESSETH: 
 WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. 401(k) and Matching
Plan (the “Plan”); 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Plan, the Benefit Plan Design
Committee (the “Committee”) of the Company maintains the authority to amend the Plan at any time; and 
 WHEREAS, the Committee desires to amend the Plan to comply with the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) Section 414(v). 
 NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended effective January 1, 2010 as follows. 
 1. Section 3.3 is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
 Section 3.3 Catch-Up Contributions. All Employees who are eligible to elect to make Pre-Tax Contributions to this Plan and who have attained age 50 before the close of the taxable year shall be eligible to make Catch-Up
Contributions pursuant to a compensation reduction agreement and in accordance with, and subject to the limitations of, Code Section 414(v) and the regulations thereunder. Such Catch-Up Contributions shall not be taken into account for purposes
of the provisions of the Plan implementing the required limitations of Code Sections 402(g) and 415. The Plan shall not be treated as failing to satisfy the provisions of the Plan implementing the requirements of Code Sections 401(k)(3),
401(k)(11), 401(k)(12), 410(b), or 416, as applicable, by reason of the making of such Catch-Up Contributions. The Committee may permit a Covered Employee to elect to have his or her Employer treat any amount or whole percentage of his or her
Catch-Up Contributions as Roth contributions. Catch-Up Contributions made by an Employer on behalf of a Participant pursuant to this Section 3.3 shall be credited to such Participant’s Catch-Up Contribution Account; provided, however, that
Catch-Up Contributions that are designated as Roth contributions shall be credited to such Participant’s Roth Catch-Up Contribution Account. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, be it further provided that except as provided above, the Plan shall continue to read in its current state. 
 * * * * * * * * 
  

 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this Amendment
No. 4 this 25th day of January, 2010, to be
effective as specified above. 
  

			
	PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES USA, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Larry N. Paulsen

	Name:	 	Larry N. Paulsen
	Title:	 	Vice President, Administration


  

 2
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Dominique WHITFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. ED 105178

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FIVE.

Filed: April 3, 2018

Kevin L. Schriener, 141 N. Meramec Avenue, Suite 314, Clayton, MO 63105, for appellant.

Joshua D. Hawley, Atty. Gen., Evan J. Buchheim, Asst. Atty. Gen., P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

Before James M. Dowd, C.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Sp.J.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM

The defendant, Dominique Whitfield, appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis following his conviction by a jury of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of section 565.023 *306RSMo. (2000 & Supp. 2014), and armed criminal action, in violation of section 571.015 RSMo. (2016). The trial court imposed the jury's recommended sentences of fifteen years of imprisonment for voluntary manslaughter and four years for armed criminal action, and ordered the sentences served concurrently. Finding no error, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

We affirm the trial court's judgment. Rule 30.25(b).
**EXHIBIT 31.1**I, David W. Williams, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Noble Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date:May 9, 2008   /s/ DAVID W. WILLIAMS David W. Williams  Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer  of Noble Corporation
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON SCHEDULE


The Board of Directors
Jackson Hewitt Inc.:

Under date of June 9, 1997, except as to note 16 which is as of June 27, 1997,
we reported on the consolidated balance sheets of Jackson Hewitt Inc. and
subsidiaries as of April 30, 1996 and 1997 and the related consolidated
statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended April 30, 1997 which are included herein. In
connection with our audits of the aforementioned consolidated financial
statements, we also audited the related consolidated financial statement
schedule, Schedule II - Valuation and Qualifying Accounts. This financial
statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statement schedule
based on our audits.

In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation
to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents
fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

                                                KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Norfolk, Virginia
June 9, 1997

<PAGE>

                                                                SCHEDULE II


                      JACKSON HEWITT INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                       VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      BALANCE,                AMOUNTS
                                                     BEGINNING               CHARGED TO                               BALANCE,
                                                      OF YEAR                 EXPENSE            DEDUCTIONS          END OF YEAR
                                                     ---------               ----------          ----------          -----------

<S> <C>
Year Ended April 30, 1995
      Allowance for doubtful accounts           $         186,493     $      1,466,663    $         (426,432)    $      1,226,724

Year Ended April 30, 1996
      Allowance for doubtful accounts           $       1,226,724     $      2,316,595    $       (2,177,069)    $      1,366,250

Year Ended April 30, 1997
      Allowance for doubtful accounts           $       1,366,250     $        991,715    $       (1,154,366)    $      1,203,599
</TABLE>
Ashley D. CARNEY, Plaintiff, v. WAKE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Defendant.

No. COA18-1299

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 6, 2019

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Calvin Payton, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 103]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered June 17, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the trial court properly determined that a sworn juror was grossly unqualified to serve. The record reveals that the juror withheld information regarding his prior conviction for possession of marihuana and that his brother-in-law had been convicted of a crime until after being sworn. Under these circumstances, the trial court properly discharged that juror pursuant to CPL 270.35 *(see, People v Richards,*267 AD2d 18; *People v Tamayo,*256 AD2d 98; *Matter of Mikel v Mark,*249 AD2d 993). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.
Broderick FLOWERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 79572

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: May 29, 2018

Ellen Flottman, Columbia, MO, Counsel for Appellant.

Richard Starnes, Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Before Division One: Lisa White Hardwick, P.J., Thomas H. Newton, and Anthony Rex Gabbert, JJ.

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

Mr. Broderick Flowers appeals the Jackson County Circuit Court judgment overruling a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct judgment and sentence. Mr. Flowers had been convicted by a jury of second-degree murder and armed criminal action *827and sentenced to twenty-five years' imprisonment. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

130816 Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. TZVIH TINMAN, a minor, by his next friend(s) Stephen J. Markman, ILENE TINMAN and/or MICHAEL TINMAN, Justices on behalf of himself a nd all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 130816 COA: 268448 Wayne CC: 99-932051-CK BLUE CROSS AND BL UE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al prior to decision by the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court before consideration by the Court of Appeals.

t1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-15-0000010 10-FEB-2015 01:34 PM

SCPW-15-0000010 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I
LANRIC HYLAND, Petitioner,

vs. DEE TORRES, Secretary to the Board of Registration; PHILLIP MATLAGE, Chair of the Board of Registration; STEWART MAEDA, Hawaii County Clerk; and VALRI KUNIMOTO, Deputy Attorney General, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CAAP-15-0000053)
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of Petitioner Lanric Hyland’s petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on January 7, 2015, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that Petitioner has filed an appeal from the Board of Registration’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Dismissing Appeals with the Intermediate Court of Appeals, docketed as CAAP-15-0000053, and may seek relief in the appeal. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. See Kema v. Gaddis , 91 Hawai ' i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d334, 338-39 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice to Petitioner raising the arguments presented in the instant petition, as appropriate, in CAAP-15-0000053. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, February 10, 2015. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
Order entered Ju ly 1 , 20 22

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 22

- 00100

- CV

IN RE ELDA TELLE , ELAINE BOSCH, CAITLIN DICKEY AND

CHICAGO TITLE OF TEXAS, LLC , Relators

Orig i nal Proceeding from the 471st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 471

- 01185

- 2021

O RDER Before Justices Osborne, Parti da

- Kipness, and Smith

Before the Court is relators ’ pe tition for writ of mandamus challenging the

trial c o urt ’ s orders holding relators in contempt.
We request that the respondent and real party in interest file a response, if
any, to relators’ petition for writ of mandamus within TWENTY DAYS of the

date of this order

. /Craig Smith/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 22, 2022

No. 04-22-00322-CR

Jonathan David FLOYD,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 11, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 619928

Honorable Timothy Johnson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On November 17, 2022, appellant filed an amended motion to suspend briefing, asserting 

that the reporter’s record is missing several items and that appellant filed a formal request to 

supplement the record on November 11, 2022. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Accordingly, 

it is ORDERED that the court reporter must supplement the reporter’s record by December 2, 

2022. It is ORDERED that appellant’s brief must be filed no later than fourteen days after the 

date the appellate record is complete.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of November, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
No. 85-6425.

#### Burnett *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Ilisha HARRIS, Appellant, v. DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent.

WD 80545

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: May 1, 2018

Ilisha Harris, Blue Springs, MO, Appellant Acting Pro Se.

Meaghan Forck, Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Before Division One: Lisa White Hardwick, P.J., Thomas H. Newton, and Cynthia L. Martin, JJ.

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

Ms. Ilisha Harris appeals a judgment from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission finding that she had not demonstrated good cause for failing to call in for the telephone hearing before the Division of Employment Security. For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).