alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Gary L. Dreher, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of AMDL, Inc.2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis annual report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the small business issuer and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annualreport based on such evaluation; andc) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: April 13, 2007
Carlos ALEMAN, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

NO. 14-18-00558-CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

Opinion filed July 24, 2018.

Michael W. Elliott, Richmond, TX, for Appellant.

John Harrity, III, Richmond, TX, for State of Texas.

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Wise, and Jewell.

PER CURIAM

Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to confinement for 28 years on March 29, 2018. Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial. Therefore, appellant's notice of appeal was due June 27, 2018. *See* Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(2). Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until July 9, 2018.

A court of appeals may grant an extension of time if, within 15 days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the party files (a) the notice of appeal in the trial court, and (b) a motion for extension *795of time in the court of appeals. *See* Tex. R. App. P. 26.3 ; *see also* Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b)(2). July 9, 2018, is a date within 15 days of the June 27, 2018 due date. However, appellant did not file in this court a compliant motion for extension of time.

In civil appeals, a request for extension is implied if a notice of appeal is filed within 15 days after the deadline. *See* *Verburgt v. Dorner* , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). However, the Court of Criminal Appeals has declined to follow *Verburgt.* *Matos v. State* , 14-17-00338-CR, 2017 WL 2218968, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] May 18, 2017, no pet.). A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. *Olivo v. State* , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). When a notice of appeal, but no motion for extension of time, is filed within the 15-day period, the court of appeals can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *See id.*

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Millard, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 904]

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Turner, J.), rendered June 14,1995, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

In March 1994, defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the third degree and sentenced to six months of incarceration and five years’ probation. In January 1995, defendant was arrested and charged with robbery in the first and third degrees stemming from two incidents in Rensselaer County. In February 1995, defendant was arraigned on charges of violating numerous conditions of his probation and he thereafter entered a plea of guilty to the violation. Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 1 to 3 years to run consecutively with the sentence imposed in Rensselaer County. Defendant appeals, contending that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made and that the sentence is harsh and excessive.

*808Having failed to move either to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment, defendant has not preserved the question of the voluntariness of the plea for our review *(see, People v Bryant,*180 AD2d 874, 875). In any event, the record does not provide any support for defendant’s claims that he believed the sentence imposed pursuant to the plea agreement was to be concurrent with any other sentence or that County Court’s inquiry was insufficient to demonstrate the knowing and voluntary nature of the plea. Accordingly, there is no basis for this Court to exercise its authority to review the unpreserved issue in the interest of justice *(cf., People v Bryant,*262 AD2d 791). We also reject defendant’s contention that his sentence was harsh and excessive. Notably, the sentence is within the statutory guidelines for the crime upon which the probation was imposed. In addition to defendant’s criminal history as revealed by the record, defendant concedes in his brief that, shortly before the plea herein, he entered a plea of guilty in Rensselaer County to the crimes of attempted robbery in the first and third degrees. Considering defendant’s inability to abide by the terms of his probation, in particular to refrain from engaging in criminal activity, we see no abuse of discretion in either the term of the sentence or the fact that it is consecutive.

Peters, J. P., Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
### M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 37TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on March 11, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

Fountains International Group, Inc., Appellant

V.

Summit Oak Development, LLC, Appellee

No. 04

- 14

- 00205

- CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2005

- CI

- 09146

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in thes e words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the

trial court is REVERSED, and the cause is REMANDED to the trial court for

further proceedings. It is ORDERED that appellant, Fountains International

Group, Inc., recover its costs of this appeal from appellee, Summit Oak

Development, LLC.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on May 20, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853BILL OF COSTS



### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04

- 14

- 00205

- CV

Fountains International Group, Inc.

v.

Summit Oak Development, LLC

(NO. 2005

- CI

- 09146 IN 37TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51

FEE

STATEWIDE EFILING FEE

INDIGENT

FILING

CLERK'S RECORD

REPORTER'S RECORD $10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$50.00

$20.00

$25.00

$100.00

$148.00

$216.00 E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID DAVID MONTPAS

JACKIE GROVES

JACKIE GROVES

IRMA WALSTON

KEVIN STOWIE

KEVIN STOUWIE

KEVIN STOWIE

KEVIN STOWIE

KEVIN STOWIE

KEVIN STOWIE

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in**  **this cause shall**  **be paid as**  **per the**  **Judgment issued by**  **this Court.** 

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this May 20, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
EXHIBIT 32.1



                            CERTIFICATION
         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
              SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of Easton Technologies Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Jianjun Zhang, President 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, to my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the
Company.


Date: July 23, 2004

/s/ Jianjun Zhang
---------------------------------------------
Jianjun Zhang, President
(principal executive officer and principal
 accounting officer)
LANCE R. LEFLEUR ROBERT J. BENTLEY 

DIRECTOR CiOVERNOR 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

adem.aiabama.gov 

1400 Coliseum Blvd. 36110-2400 ■ Post Office Box 301463 

Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1463 

(334) 271-7700 ■ FAX (334) 271-7950 

June 5, 2015 

Ms. hieather McTeer Toney 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 4 

Atlanta Federal Center 

01 Forsyth Street, S.W. 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960 

Re: Request for Withdrawal of 335-3-14-.05(1)(h) in May 2, 2011, SIP Submission 

On May 2, 2011, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) submitted a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to EPA Region 4 to incorporate federal requirements for Fine 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5). Revisions were made to Rule 335-3-14-.05 (permits) to align ADEM's 

regulations with EPA's regulations and requirements as published on December 31, 2002, November 29, 

2005, May 16, 2008, and October 20, 2010. 

An element of the May 2, 2011, SIP submittal (335-3-14-.05(1)(h)) addressed the "actual —to-potential" 

test for projects that involve only existing emissions units in nonattainment areas. EPA has transmitted 

to ADEM its opinion that this subparagraph cannot be approved. Because this provision has such a low 

likelihood of ever being relevant in Alabama (we have never received a nonattainment new or modified 

source application), ADEM requests the wit,hdrawal of the prqvision, ADEM Administrative Code 335-3- 

14-.05(1)(h), in the May 2, 2011, SIP submittal. 

If you have any questions or comments, please contact Ron Gore of my staff at (334) 271-7868. 

Sincerely, 

; r .~ 

•. 

Lance R. L leur 

Director 

LRL:sfc 

Birmingham Branch Decatur Branch 1 Moblle Branch Mobile-Coastal 

110 Vulcan Road 2715 Sandlin Road, S. W. * * 2204 Perimeter Road 4171 Commanders Drive 

Birmingham, AL 35209-4702 Decatur, AL 35603-1333 * Mobile, AL 36615-1131 Mobile, AL 36615-1421 

(205) 942-6168 (256) 353-1713 r! 1-' (251) 450-3400 (251) 432-6533 

(205) 941-1603 (FAX) (256) 340-9359 (FAX) ~1T S4" (251) 479-2593 (FAX) (251) 432-6598 (FAX)
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersignedcertifies that (1) this Quarterly Report of RFS Partnership, L.P. (the“Operating Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(this “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) theinformation contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition of the Operating Partnership as of September 30, 2003and December 31, 2002 and its results of operations for the three and ninemonths ended September 30, 2003.

 
|                         |   | /s/ C. Brian Strickland                                                                                                                            |   |
|------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: November 14, 2003 |   |   Name: C. Brian Strickland

  Title: Executive Vice President  (Principal    Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

1

----
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION IN THE 

OF MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS 

OF MARYLAND 

Petitioner, 

v. Misc. Docket AG 

No. 51 

DAVID LESLIE MCGILL September Term, 2017 

Respondent. 

ORDER 

The Court of Appeals of Maryland, having considered the Joint Petition of the 

Attorney Grievance Commission and Respondent, David Leslie McGill, to place 

Respondent on Inactive Status by Consent pursuant to Maryland Rules 19-736(c), it is this 

20th day of December , 201 7; 

ORDERED, that the Joint Petition be, and it is hereby GRANTED, and the 

Respondent, David Leslie McGill, is hereby placed on Inactive Status by consent; and it is 

further, 

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall remove the name of David Leslie 

McGill from the register of attorneys in the Court and certify that fact to the Client 

Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and all Clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State 

in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-761. 

/s/ Clayton Greene Jr. 

Senior Judge
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Spencer, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 886]

Appeal by the de*540fendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (DeRiggi, J.), rendered March 22, 1999, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Calabrese, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his refusal to sign a document acknowledging that he had waived his *Miranda*rights (see, *Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436) demonstrated that his statement to the police was involuntary. This contention is without merit (see, *North Carolina v Butler,*441 US 369; *People v Davis,*55 NY2d 731; *People v Rivas,*175 AD2d 186; *People v Ridge-way,*101 AD2d 555, *affd*64 NY2d 952).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review, not properly before this Court, or without merit *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105; *People v Fontana,*267 AD2d 398; *People v Valez,*256 AD2d 135). Bracken, Acting P. J., O’Brien, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
KFS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 18-0696

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

SARAH LOUISE CARPENTER,

a/k/a SKINNER,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for an extension of time, and good

cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including

August 8, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

July 1 2020

07/01/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0696
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 26030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10617]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9927-34-Region 6]

Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period for the Preliminary 
Designation of Certain Stormwater Discharges in the State of New Mexico 
Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System of the Clean 
Water Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice and extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The public comment period for the Environmental Protection 
Agency Region 6 (EPA Region 6) Preliminary Designation of certain 
stormwater discharges in Los Alamos County, New Mexico has been 
extended until June 15, 2015.

DATES: The comment period for the notice published on March 17, 2015 
(80 FR 13852) has been extended. Comments must be submitted in 
electronic format or in writing to EPA on or before June 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to Ms. Evelyn Rosborough via 
email: rosborough.evelyn@epa.gov, or may be mailed to Ms. Evelyn 
Rosborough, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Protection 
Division (6WQ-NP), 1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Ms. Evelyn Rosborough, (214) 
665-7515 or at rosborough.evelyn@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Regional Administrator of EPA Region 6 
published a Notice of Availability for the Preliminary Determination 
that certain stormwater discharges in Los Alamos County, New Mexico 
will be required to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) permit coverage under the Clean Water Act in the Federal 
Register on March 17, 2015 (80 FR 13852). In response to requests, the 
EPA is extending the public comment period for the Preliminary 
Designation until June 15, 2015. The comment period for the preliminary 
designation was initially scheduled to close on April 16, 2015.
    The Preliminary Designation Document and supplementary information 
are available on the EPA Region 6 Web page at http://www.epa.gov/region6/water/npdes/publicnotices/nm/nmdraft.htm and the extension of 
the comment was posted on this Web page on April 15, 2015.

    Dated: April 24, 2015.
David W. Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-10617 Filed 5-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### Beninati Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., Inc., Respondent, v Gelco Builders, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Home Indemnity Company, Appellant.

[720 NYS2d 37]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered December 14, 1999, which, after a non-jury trial, *inter alia,*entitled plaintiff subcontractor to recover from defendant surety Home Indemnity Company payment under its bond, interest, and attorneys’ fees pursuant to State Finance Law § 137, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although defendant surety maintains that the services of plaintiff subcontractor to meet the specifications of a change order issued in connection with the underlying construction contract between defendant contractor Gelco and the New York City Transit Authority were not fairly within the contemplation of the parties at the time the original underlying contract was made and, thus, were not services for which it was obligated as surety under its payment bond, it is clear that the change order at issue, involving a relatively small amount of additional work, similar in nature to the work already performed under the contract, was indispensable to the achievement of the contract’s essential purpose and was well within the parties’ contemplation. We note in addition that defendant surety in its bond expressly agreed that its obligation under its bond “shall be in no way impaired or affected by any extension of time, modification, omission, addition, or change in or of the said Contract or work to be performed thereunder.”

Nor can we agree with defendant surety that the change order work at issue was performed outside of the period covered by the payment bond, which by its terms was to remain in force until the date of final project completion. The Transit Authority’s certificate of final payment, treated by the parties as the certificate of final project completion, was not issued until after plaintiff subcontractor had rendered its services pursuant to the change order at issue.

Finally, while an unsuccessful defense alone does not suffice as a basis for an award of attorneys’ fees under State Finance Law § 137 (4) (c) *(see, Northeast Caissons v Columbus Constr. Corp.,*268 AD2d 512; *Conesco Indus, v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co.,*210 AD2d 596, *lv denied*85 NY2d 809), the trial court properly found that defendant surety’s arguments were without substantial basis since there was no plausible ground for its claim that the change order in question was not issued pursuant to the covered contract, and given that finding, the award *413of attorneys’ fees pursuant to State Finance Law § 137 (4) (c) was appropriate. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.
|Grant Thornton LLPChartered AccountantsManagement Consultants
|-------------------------------------------------------------

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



|The Board of DirectorsQSound Labs, Inc.
|---------------------------------------

We have issued our report dated March 29, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of QSound Labs, Inc. on the Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006. We herby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of QSound Labs, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-09228, effective August 8, 1998, 333-117165, effective July 2, 2004 and 333-133714, effective May 1, 2006), on Form F-3/A (File
No. 333-121871, effective April 7, 2005) and on Form F-3 (File No. 333-133290, effective May 4, 2006).



|Sun Life Plaza, East TowerSuite 1000, 112  4thAvenue SWCalgary, AlbertaT2P 0H3
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|T | (403) 260-2500          
|- | ------------------------
|F | (403) 260-2571          
|E | Calgary@GrantThornton.ca
|W | www.GrantThornton.ca    
| 



|Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International
|-----------------------------------------------

---