alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2**I, Thomas L. Mitchell, 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/ THOMAS L. MITCHELL ThomasL. Mitchell  Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Controller  of Noble Corporation
EAA Aviation Center ▪ PO Box 3086, Oshkosh, WI 54903-3086 ▪ Ph: 920-426-4800 ▪ Fax: 920-426-6560 ▪ www.eaa.org

June 9, 2011

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

400 7th Street SW

Room PL-400

Washington, DC 20591-0001

Dear Sirs:

Reference: DOT Docket FAA-2001-10876, FAA Exemption No. 6541L, Operation of EAA’s B17 and Spirit of St. Louis for Historical Flight and Education Purposes.

EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) is the world leader in recreational aviation. With an 

international membership of 170,000 people in more than 112 nations, EAA brings together 

aviation enthusiasts, pilots and aircraft owners who are dedicated to the continued growth of 

aviation, the preservation of its history and a commitment to aviation’s future. EAA programs, 

activities and events are known throughout the world for Preserving the heritage of aviation, 

Promoting access to flight, Protecting the right to fly, Preparing the future of aviation, and of 

our Passion for aviation safety and education.

All conditions and limitation contained within this FAA exemption remain valid, as does the 

historic and educational flight purposes for flying the EAA B-17, N5017N, and the EAA Ryan 

replica Spirit of St. Louis, NX211, as authorized by the existing exemption, 6541L.

Therefore, EAA is requesting the exemption be renewed as it continues to be in the best interest 

of the public.

Sincerely,

Randy Hansen

Government Relations Director
Gregory SOLOMON, Patricia Beckwith, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

LIBERTY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Liberty County School Board, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-2540.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

March 14, 2000.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Nos. 85-CV-7009, 85-CV7010); Maurice M. Paul, Judge.

(Opinion Feb. 3, 1999, 166 F.3d 1135, 11th Cir., 1999).

Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK,

CARNES, BARKETT, HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestions of rehearing en

banc and a majority of the judges in this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing

en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc. The previous panel's

opinion is hereby VACATED.
Jonathan J. FISHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 81258

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: JULY 24, 2018

Samuel E Buffaloe, Columbia, MO, Counsel for Appellant.

Shaun Mackelprang, Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Before Division Four: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge, Gary D. Witt, Judge, Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

Jonathan Fisher appeals the motion court's denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief asking the court to vacate his four-year sentence for class C felony stealing under the 2013 version of Section 570.030, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2013, and resentence him as a class A misdemeanor in accordance with *State v. Bazell* , 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016). We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 31.1

          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT

I, Edwin M.  Golstein,  the Chief  Executive  Officer of Dairene  International,
certify that:

1.  I  have   reviewed  this   quarterly   report  on  Form  10-QSB  of  Dairene
International;

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

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  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  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  quarterly  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;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which 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: January 30, 2004
                                      /s/  Edwin M. Golstein /s/
                                      --------------------------------------
                                      Edwin M. Golstein, Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
Bradley L. MACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 80762

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: August 28, 2018

Laura G. Martin, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Shaun J. Mackelprang, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before Division One: Thomas H. Newton, Presiding Judge, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge and Gary D. Witt, Judge

**ORDER**

Per curiam:

Bradley Mack ("Mack") appeals the Circuit Court of Jackson County's denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Following a jury trial, Mack was convicted of one count of robbery in the first degree, section 569.020, as a prior offender. Mack was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. As relevant to this appeal, Mack argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of a plea offer from the State. The motion court denied Mack's claim, as it found the lead trial attorney's ("Trial Counsel") testimony credible that Mack was informed about the plea offer but that Mack chose to decline the offer against the advice of counsel. Mack appeals. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Krissia R. Toss et al., Appellants, v Stephanie Randall et al., Respondents.

[719 NYS2d 295]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Murphy, J.), dated August 13, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Rockland County, for a new trial.

The instant action arises out of a two-vehicle accident which occurred on Route 208 in Rockland County. While rounding a curve on the northbound side of the road, the defendant Stephanie Randall lost control of her vehicle, crossed a double yellow line, and struck a vehicle driven by the injured plaintiff, Krissia Toss. Toss and her husband brought the instant action against Randall and her mother, owner of the vehicle which Randall was driving, to recover damages, *inter alia,*for personal injuries which Krissia Toss allegedly suffered in the collision. At trial, the court granted the defense counsel’s request, over the objection of the plaintiffs’ counsel, to charge the jury on the “unavoidable accident” doctrine. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, and a judgment was entered dismissing the complaint.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argue, *inter alia,*that the trial court erred in charging the jury on the unavoidable accident doctrine. We agree. “An unavoidable accident is an occurrence which is not intended and could not have been foreseen or prevented by the exercise of reasonable caution” *(Mikula v Duliba,*94 AD2d 503, 507). “A jury may be instructed as to unavoidable accident only if it could find that the accident resulted from an unknown cause or in an unexplained manner *570not occasioned by the negligence of either party” *(DiLorenzo v Venosa,*50 AD2d 603; *see, Mikula v Duliba, supra).*Under the facts of this case, the evidence did not warrant a charge on the unavoidable accident doctrine *(see, Carson v De Lorenzo,*238 AD2d 790). Therefore, we reverse the judgment, reinstate the plaintiffs’ complaint, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Rockland County, for a new trial.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.
#### Elizabeth Macholz, Appellant, v Mark Weiss, Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 606]

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated February 9, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the cause of action sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress as barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the cause of action sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress on the ground that it is time-barred *(see,*CPLR 215 [3]; *Langford v Roman Catholic Diocese,*271 AD2d 494; *Weisman v Weisman,*108 AD2d 853). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.
#### Rebecca Ann Craven, *Appellant,*v. A. H. Hartley, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed April 13, 1928.

*J ohn E.*and *Julian Hartridge,*for Appellant;

*Paul C. Marion,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of tñe decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
CHARLESTON.

#### Sewell Valley Railroad Company *v.*James McClung *et al.*

(No. 5646)

Submitted April 21, 1926.

Decided April 27, 1926.

Eminent *Domain*— In *Proceeding to Condemn Land for Railroad, Order Adjudicating Rights of Applicant to Take Land, and Appointing Commissioners to] Ascertain Just Compensation to Owner, is Not Final Order, to Which Writ of Error Will Lie to Supreme Court of Appeals (Code, e. 42, % 14).*

In a proceeding under chapter 42 of the Code, to condemn and take land for railroad purposes, an order adjudicating the rights of the applicant to take the land and appointing commissioners to ascertain what will be just compensation and damages to the land owner, is not a final order to which a writ of error will lie to this court.

(Eminent Domain, 20 C. J. § 473.)

(Note : Parenthetical references hy Editors, C. J. — Cyc Not part of syllabi.)

Error to Circuit Court, Greenbrier County.

*532Proceeding by the Sewell Valley Railroad Company against James McClung and others to condemn land. An order was entered condemning land, and appointing commissioners to determine compensation to the landowners, and defendants bring error.

*Writ or error dismissed.*

*J. 8.*McWhorter, for plaintiffs in error.

*Dice é Easley,*for defendant in error.

Miller, Judge :

In this statutory proceeding to condemn land for railroad purposes, the circuit court found that the applicant had lawful right t9 take the property described in its petition, and that the land proposed to be taken was necessary for the purposes set out in the petition; and appointed commissioners, pursuant to section 14 of chapter 42 of the Code, to ascertain according to law what would be just compensation for the land proposed to be taken. Prom this order certain of the land owners interested obtained the present writ of error. No further proceedings appear in the record.

In view of our decisions it becomes apparent that the writ of error will have to be dismissed as imjjrovidently awarded.

The following cases hold that in a proceeding under the statute to condemn and take land for railroad purposes, an order adjudicating the rights of the applicant to take the land and appointing commissioners to ascertain what will be just compensation and damages to the land owner, is not a final order to which a writ of error will lie: *Wheeling Railway Company*v. *Wheeling Steel & Iron Company,*41 W. Va. 747; *White Oak Railway Company*v. *Gordon,*61 W. Va. 519; *Panhandle Traction Company*v. *Schenk,*73 W. Va. 226. In *City of Bluefield*v. *Bailey,*62 W. Va. 304, it was held that where there is an order adjudicating the right of the applicant to condemn, followed by the appointment of commissioners to assess compensation, a report by them, an order allowing the money to be paid, and its payment into court, *533and not otherwise, a writ of error and supersedeas is proper. The writ will therefore be dismissed.

*Writ of error dismissed.*
<page>                                           EXHIBIT 32.01



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Dean Witter Diversified
Futures Fund II L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2004 as filed with Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Jeffrey A. Rothman,
President, Demeter Management Corporation, the general partner of
the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:

	(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 Partnership.




By: /s/ Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name: 	 Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:	 President

Date:	 March 31, 2005
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 17

- 00654

- CV

Edyth Bazemore

- Babich, Appellant

v.

Donald J. Moran, Appellee

FROM THE 425TH JUDIC IAL DISTRICT COURT O F WILLIAMSON COUNTY
NO. 15

- 0418

- F425, TH E HONORABLE BETSY F. LAMBETH, JUDG E PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s brief was originally due on May 21, 2018 . On June 5, 2018 , this

Court sent a notice to appellant informing her that her brief was overdue and that a failure to file

a satisfactory response by June 15, 2018

, would result in the dismi ssal of this appeal for want

of prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a brief or a motion for extension of time.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See T ex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin , Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: August 1, 2018
EXHIBIT 10.8(f)


LIST OF CERTAIN BENEFITS

AVAILABLE TO CERTAIN EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

(As in effect February 1, 2010)


The following benefits are
available to some or all executive officers (among other persons), but not to
all full-time employees of the Corporation.


	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 1)

 	
 If the Board has
 authorized a stock repurchase program, an executive may request the
 repurchase of shares of the Corporation at the day’s volume-weighted average
 price with no payment of any fees or commissions if the repurchase of the
 shares is otherwise permissible under the authorized program.

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 2)

 	
 The Corporation’s
 disability insurance program generally is available to employees. Persons
 above a certain grade level, including executive officers, receive an
 additional benefit. Executive officers are paid an amount each year intended
 to reimburse premiums associated with the additional benefit.

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 3)

 	
 The Corporation makes
 available or pays for tax preparation, tax consulting, estate planning, and
 financial counseling services for executive officers. Current limits on this
 benefit applicable to executives are: $15,000 per year for the CEO ($22,500
 in any year in which a new financial counseling firm is engaged); and $5,000
 per year for other executives ($7,500 in any year in which a new financial
 counseling firm is engaged).

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 4)

 	
 On occasion spouses of
 certain employees, including executive officers, are asked by the
 Corporation, for business reasons, to accompany the employee on a business
 trip or function. In those cases the Corporation may pay the travel,
 accommodation, and other expenses of the spouse incidental to the trip or
 function, some or all of which can result in taxable income for the employee.
 Also, on occasion the Corporation may provide or pay for a memento, gift, or other
 gratuity that the employee or spouse receives in connection with the business
 trip or function.

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 5)

 	
 The Corporation provides a
 relocation benefit to a wide range of employees, including executive
 officers, under varying circumstances and subject to certain constraints. The
 benefit may be in the form of an allowance or a reimbursement of actual
 expenses.

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 6)

 	
 The
 Corporation provides a cash allowance to certain employees, including
 executive officers, which is intended to defray expenses associated with
 goods and services purchased personally and used at least in part for
 business purposes (such as cell phone service).
**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 BMR Solutions, Inc. a Nevada corporation
        (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
        Marla Andre, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best
        of
        her knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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. 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        BMR Solutions, Inc., and will be retained by BMR Solutions, Inc. and furnished
        to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
 
 /s/ Marla
                AndreMarla
                  Andre
                Chief
                  Financial Officer
                May
                  14, 2007