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

Exhibit 31

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Richard Smitten, CEO and CFO, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Stock Market
Solutions, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. I am 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 we 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 is made known to us
by others within the Corporation, 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;
and

5. I have disclosed, based on my 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):

      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:  November 7, 2003

                              /s/ RICHARD SMITTEN
                                  Richard Smitten
                                  CEO and CFO
```
William Preston CAHILL, Jr. v. Armand Alice Unkauf CAHILL

NO. 2018-CC-0028

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 23, 2018

Granted in part. The portion of the court of appeal's judgment holding relator, Armand Alice Unkauf Cahill, in contempt of court is reversed. In all other respects, the writ is denied.

HUGHES, J., would deny.
David I. WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D16-4095

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 2, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         January 3, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 27, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 414 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-109, CP2018-151.                

Elizabeth A. Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2017-28371 Filed 1-2-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Michael Christopher REID, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D16-0536

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed December 27, 2017

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and John Eddy Morrison, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Marlon J. Weiss, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, LUCK and LINDSEY, JJ.

*ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION*

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the appellant's motion for clarification, we withdraw our opinion issued in this case on November 1, 2017 and replace it with the opinion which follows.

Affirmed without prejudice to appellant's raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in an appropriate Rule 3.850 motion. *See**Adderly v. State*, 132 So.3d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ; *Davis v. State*, 25 So.3d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) ; *Taylor v. State*, 848 So.2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 14610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7155]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending March 14, 2009.

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2009-0063.
    Date Filed: March 10, 2009.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: March 31, 2009.
    Description: Application of A-Jet Aviation & Aircraft Management 
GmbH (``A-Jet'') requesting an exemption and a foreign air carrier 
permit authorizing A-Jet to engage in charter foreign air 
transportation of persons, property and mail to and from points in the 
United States to the full extent permitted by its homeland operating 
authority and the EU-U.S. open-skies agreement, as well as other 
charters pursuant to the prior approval requirements.

 Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Alternate Federal 
Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E9-7155 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
EXHIBIT 32
----------




                           CERTIFICATIONS 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
       ---------------------------------------------------------



     The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be
deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 or any other securities law:

     Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of JMB/245 PARK
AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LTD.





By: /s/ Patrick J. Meara          By: /s/ Gailen J. Hull
    ----------------------            ----------------------------
    Patrick J. Meara                  Gailen J. Hull
    Chief Executive Officer           Chief Financial Officer and
                                      Principal Accounting Officer
SERVED: OCTOBER28, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT, INC.

DOCKETNO. FAA-2014-0815 (Civil Penalty Action)
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING - -**--~ -~-**  _).

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2014WP110010) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge Richard C. Goodwin.· All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAAHearing Docket, and the otherpersons onthe attached Service List.

Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST -BYU.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 ONE COPY Michael 

### L. Dworkin, Respondent's Counsel 465 California Street, Suite 210 San Francisco, CA 94104-1808 TEL: 415-421-2500 FAX: 415-421-2560 Iryll Robbins-Umel, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-7 Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-7112 FAX: 310-725-6816 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2014-0815 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 2
**Exhibit 32.2****WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350**     Solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of North PointeHoldings Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andthat the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: August 11, 2006              /s/ Brian J. Roney   Brian J. Roney   Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of Techwell, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly periodended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), Mark Voll, Vice President, Finance andAdministration and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        | /s/ Mark Voll                              |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | Mark Voll                                  |
|   | Vice President of Finance and              |
|   | Administration and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | May 14, 2007                               |

 

----
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37665

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

DEVON BLAKE ELMORE

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2011 Unpublished Opi nion No. 372

Filed: March 1, 2011

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Sta te of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Cheri C. Copsey , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years , for aggravated assault

, affirmed

.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney Gener al; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

______________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Devon Blake Elmore was found guilty of aggravated assault . I.C. § § 18

- 901(1), 18

-
905(B), 18

- 204 . The district court sentenced Elmore to a unified term of five years, with a

minimum period of confinement of two years

. Elmore appeals.

Se ntencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho2 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Elmore ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
|   | **Exhibit 32.1** |
|--------|------------------|

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Xebec International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Barrett Hicken, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,            pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.

 

| **/s/** | **BARRETTHICKEN** |
|---------|-------------------|

 

**Barrett Hicken**

Chief Executive Officer

Principal Financial Officer

Principal Accounting Officer

March 31, 2009

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-K solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
accompanying financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             896
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1466
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       1214
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3862
<PP&E>                                            1816
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (840)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5449
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1274
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                        3296
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5449
<SALES>                                           3521
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3521
<CGS>                                             1822
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1822
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1597
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  73
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    112
<INCOME-TAX>                                        32
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 79
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        79
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03



</TABLE>
David L. GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-1315

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed October 10, 2017 Rehearing Denied November 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### WALLING, Administrator of Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor, v. SONDOCK et al.

No. 10321.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 12, 1942.

*78Charles R. Reynolds, Jr., Principal Atty.,, U. S. Department of Labor, Warner W. Gardner, Sol., U. S. Department of Labor, Mortimer B. Wolf, Asst. Sol., U. S. Department of Labor, and Irving J. Levy, Associate Sol., U. S. Department of Labor, all of Washington, D. C., and Llewellyn B. Duke, Regional Atty., U. S. Department of Labor, of Dallas, Tex., for appellant.

Tom M. Davis and Dillon Anderson, both of Houston, Tex., for appellees.

Before HOLMES and McCORD, Circuit Judges, and STRUM, District Judge.

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

Appellees operate an agency engaged in the business of furnishing guards or watchmen to various customers in and about Houston, Texas. The question for decision is whether appellees are subject to the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 19381 with respect to those of their employees that are furnished to customers engaged in the production of goods for commerce or the distribution of goods in commerce.

Whether or not the Act, 29 U.S. C. A. § 151 et seq., is applicable in a given instance depends upon the character of the duties performed by the employee;2 and, if the work of the employee has such close and immediate cqnnection with the process of production for commerce as to be an essential part of it, such employee is engaged in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the Act.3 Similarly, if an employee’s services are part of and contribute materially to the consummation of transactions in interstate commerce, the employee is engaged in commerce as defined by the Act. Upon these principles, those watchmen charged with the protection and preservation of the buildings and machinery used to produce goods for commerce perform duties having an essential relationship to the process of producing and distributing goods in interstate commerce.

Alternatively, appellees contend that these employees were engaged in a service establishment, the greater part of whose servicing was in intrastate commerce; that, by reason thereof, Section 13(a) (2) of the Act, renders Sections 6 and 7 thereof inapplicable to them. It was upon the ground that the agency was a service establishment that the court below gave judgment for the appellees.

*79Upon the authority of Kirschbaum v. Walling,4 and by analogous reasoning, we hold that these employees were not engaged in a service establishment within the meaning of said Section 13(a) (2). For this reason the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

1

29 U.S.C.A. §§ 206, 207.

2

 Fleming v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 5 Cir., 128 F.2d 395.

3

 Kirschbaum v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517, 62 S.Ct. 1116, 86 L.Ed. —.

4

 See 83 Congress. Record, 1938, pages 7436-7438; Senate Bill 2475 as passed by Senate July 31, 1937, Sec. 2(a) (7), as amended by House May 24, 1938, See. 6 (c).
EX PARTE Erskine L. SPEARMAN

CR-16-0157

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 14, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.