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

e-SMART TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mary A. Grace, the Registrants Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1. I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of e-Smart Technologies, 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; and

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 have:

a) Designed and recently commenced the implementation of such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; and

b) Evaluated the increasing effectiveness of the Registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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.



|                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------
|Dated: June 27, 2006                               
|                                                   
|/s/ Mary A. Grace                                  
|Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
Exhibit 10.1


 


Pursuant to an unwritten employment arrangement between the Company and Randy A. Ramlo as of May 14, 2007, Mr. Ramlo’s compensation package consists of the following components:


 





	
             
 	
            §
 	
            Base salary of $300,000 per year;
 









	
             
 	
            §
 	
            Participation in the Company’s Annual Incentive Plan with the potential for an annual bonus of up to 48 percent of annual base salary, depending upon the achievement of certain corporate goals; 
 









	
             
 	
            §
 	
            Participation in the Company’s deferred compensation plan; 
 









	
             
 	
            §
 	
            Eligibility for an annual equity award pursuant to the Company’s Employee Stock Option Plan; and
 






Other benefits provided by the Company to all employees.
**Exhibit34.2**

** **

**Reportof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board ofDirectors

GeneralElectric Capital Corporation:

 

We haveexamined the accompanying management’s assertion that General Electric CapitalCorporation, (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth inItem 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB forasset-backed securities transactions for which the Company acted as servicerinvolving credit card receivables, accounts receivable and asset based lendingreceivables (the Platform), as of and for the twelve months ended December 31,2009.  Management has determined thatcriteria 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iv) and 1122(d)(4)(vi) areapplicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform, and thatall other servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) are not applicableto the primary servicing services provided by the Company with respect to thePlatform.  Appendix B to management’sassertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and securitiesdefined by management as constituting the Platform.  Management is responsible for the Company’scompliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express anopinion on management’s assessment about the Company’s compliance based on ourexamination.

 

Ourexamination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the PublicCompany Accounting Oversight Board (United States)****and,accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’scompliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing suchother procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing selectedasset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testingselected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whetherthe Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the servicing criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited tothe selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Companyduring the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may haveoccurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected thebalances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the periodcovered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions.We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legaldetermination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assessment that the Company complied with the aforementionedservicing criteria including servicing criteria as of and for the twelve monthsended December 31, 2009 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

(Signed)KPMG LLP

 

 

Chicago,Illinois

March 29,2010

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

      Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United State Code, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of CNB Financial Services, Inc. (the
"Company"), does hereby certify that:

      (1)   The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
            March 31, 2004 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirement
            of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Company's Report fairly presents,
            in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
            operations of the Company.


                                            /s/ Rebecca S. Stotler
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Rebecca S. Stotler
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            May 13, 2004
Jose Cirilo Izaquirre PEREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-1319

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 22, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-10128

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN EARL THOMAS, also known as Wino, 

also known as Max,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:03-CR-78-10-N 

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

John Earl Thomas, in reliance on Blakely v. Washington,

124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), argues that the district court plainly

erred in imposing a sentence based on facts not alleged in the

indictment, not admitted by him in court, and not proved to a

jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Thomas challenges on Blakely

grounds the district court’s findings that he be held accountable

for sentencing purposes for 612.6 grams of cocaine base and that

he be held accountable for possession of a firearm.
No. 04-10128

-2-

To demonstrate plain error, Thomas has the burden of showing

an error that is obvious and that affects his substantial rights. 

United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005),

petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). To show

that the error affected his substantial rights, Thomas has the

burden of demonstrating that “the sentencing judge--sentencing

under an advisory scheme rather than a mandatory one--would have

reached a significantly different result.” Id. at 521 (citation

omitted). Thomas has not shown that the district court would

have imposed a different sentence. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the

judgment of the district court.
Exhibit 99.2





Report Of Independent


Registered Public Accounting Firm




To the Board of Directors


Structured Obligations Corporation


New York, New York




We have examined the compliance of Structured Obligations Corporation (Depositor) and U.S. Bank National Association (Trustee) with the Base Trust Agreement and the Select Notes Trust Supplement LT 2003-2 (the Agreements) relating to the administration of the underlying securities and related credit support deposited in or held by the Select Notes Trust LT 2003-2 for the year ended December 31, 2012.  Depositor’s management is responsible for compliance with those requirements.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance with the Agreements based on our examination.




Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about Depositor’s and Trustee’s compliance with those requirements described above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination of Depositor’s and Trustee’s compliance with specified requirements.




In our opinion, Depositor and Trustee complied, in all material respects, with the requirements described above of the Agreements for the year ended December 31, 2012.




This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Depositor, the Trustee, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Certificate Holders of the Select Notes Trust LT 2003-2, and is not intended to be, and should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties.




/s/ RubinBrown LLP
 
 
 Overland Park, Kansas
 March 8, 2013
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_science(3)
              - products_publications(6)
              - multimedia_video(3)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - news_other_news(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(2)
              - other_basic-37(1)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(12)
              - arizona(8)
              - california(17)
              - colorado(5)
              - connecticut(3)
              - (-)delaware(3)
              - district of columbia(2)
              - florida(8)
              - georgia(4)
              - hawaii(13)
              - idaho(3)
              - kansas(4)
              - kentucky(1)
              - louisiana(3)
              - maine(2)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(6)
              - minnesota(1)
              - mississippi(3)
              - montana(4)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(3)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(4)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(4)
              - north carolina(4)
              - north dakota(1)
              - ohio(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - rhode island(2)
              - south carolina(3)
              - south dakota(47)
              - texas(5)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(2)
              - virginia(6)
              - washington(2)
              - west virginia(1)
              - wisconsin(1)
              - wyoming(11)

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        April 8, 2024        USGS Northeast Region: The Short Story

Featured Films and Shorts        September 30, 2017        USGS Hurricane Preparedness

Featured Films and Shorts        January 7, 2022        USGS Capabilities: Geomorphology
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Pioneer Bankshares Inc., respectively, certify that, to the best of each such individuals knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pioneer Bankshares Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|                      |  |                                           
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2008 |  | /s/ THOMAS R. ROSAZZA                     
|                      |  | Thomas R. Rosazza                         
|                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer     
|                      | 
|Date: August 12, 2008 |  | /s/ LORI G. HASSETT                       
|                      |  | Lori G. Hassett                           
|                      |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Pioneer Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Pioneer
Bankshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Norman Tyrone SANKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3039

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed September 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
The HONORABLE JIMM LARRY HENDREN, United States District

1

Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

___________

No. 95-3035

___________

Inalene Lewis, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Benjamin Reynolds; Sharron * Western District of Arkansas.

Longino; Michael Dunaway; Arthur *

Paul Bowen; Mike Dunn; * [UNPUBLISHED]

United States of America, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: April 26, 1996

 Filed: May 2, 1996

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Inalene Lewis appeals from the district court's order dismissing her 1

complaint with prejudice in this action arising out of the debtor-creditor

relationship between Lewis and the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA),

previous litigation between the parties, and the foreclosure on Lewis's

home. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we

conclude the district court's judgment was correct. Accordingly, we

affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 10.1 - Trust Agreement.





Exhibit 10.1



TRUST AGREEMENT



BETWEEN:

LARRY SOSTAD (Trustee)

AND:

EARTH DRAGON RESOURCES INC. (Earth Dragon)

IT IS AGREED THAT:

LARRY SOSTAD currently owns holds personally the Mineral Rights to the Mountain Queen Lode Mining Claim, located in Clark County Nevada, registered in the Certificate of Location Book & Instrument #20071130-0003367 in Map Book and instrument # 2007113000-00033366.


	Lode Mining Claim Name  	Claim Number  	Expiry Date  
	   		
	Mountain Queen  	NMC#980946  	September 1, 2008  
	   		
	(the Claim)  	  	  




The Trustee, for a payment of US$6,500.000 hereby does declare and hold upon trust the aforementioned Claim on behalf of Earth Dragon from this day forward.

Earth Dragon shall have the responsibility to keep the Claim in good standing in terms of filing and work and all other requirements.



DATED at Vancouver, B.C.

Acknowledged and agreed to this

3rd day of March, 2008.



EARTH DRAGON RESOURCE INC.NC.



YUAN KUN DENG

Per: Authorized Signatory (ies)

 

LARRY SOSTAD

LARRY SOSTAD
Rachel E. FIELDS, Appellant, v. Donnie B. FIELDS, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3751

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed August 24, 2018

Margaret E. Kozan, of Margaret E. Kozan, P.A., Winter Park, and Daniel C. Elkins, of Law Offices of Elkins & Freedman, Altamonte Springs, for Appellant.

Megan D. Widmeyer, of Law Offices of Megan D. Widmeyer, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Rachel E. Fields, the former wife, appeals the trial court's order granting the former husband's, Donnie B. Fields, motion to set aside the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The former wife submitted a proposed final judgment to the trial judge that incorporated the parties' settlement agreement. The former husband objected to parts of the proposed final judgment.

*223Without ruling on the former husband's objections, the trial court entered the former wife's proposed final judgment.1 Thereafter, on the former husband's motion, the trial court set aside the final judgment and ordered the parties to attend mediation and re-notice the case for trial. The former wife challenges that order, arguing that there was no evidence of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect justifying setting aside the final judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(2), and that there was no evidence of fraud or another basis for setting aside the settlement agreement.

We affirm without discussion that portion of the order setting aside the final judgment under rule 1.540(b)(2) as it appears the trial court was unaware that the former husband had objected to the proposed final judgment. However, we reverse the order to the extent that the court also ordered the parties to attend mediation and re-notice the case for trial because it effectively set aside the parties' valid settlement agreement without any justification and granted relief the former husband did not request in his motion.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

1

We express no opinion on the merits or timeliness of the former husband's objections.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00034-CR

IN RE WILLIE JORDAN DERRICK

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed February 27, 2014

[OT06]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GERALDINE TALLEY HOBBY, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) Civil Action No. 20-3842 (UNA)

) 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed what is construed to be a motion under Rule 60(b) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. # 6 (“Motion in Response to Dismissal and a 

Request for Reinstatement”). She seeks relief from the order entered on January 19, 2021, which 

dismissed this action for insufficient pleading under Rule 8. See Mem. Op. [Dkt. # 3]. 

In its discretion, a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding for 

any one of six enumerated reasons. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6). The instant motion and its 

assorted attachments provide no discernible grounds to merit reopening this case. See Thomas v. 

Holder, 750 F.3d 899, 902 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (a party seeking relief under Rule 60(b) must offer “a 

hint of a suggestion” that she might prevail if the case is reopened) (quoting Marino v. DEA, 685 

F.3d 1076, 1080 (D.C. Cir. 2012)). Plaintiff’s confusing attempts to amend the complaint, see

generally attachments, do not cure the pleading defects. See Mem. Op. at 2 ( noting that “[i]nstead 

of differentiating her intended claims and succinctly identifying her allegations and entitlement to 

relief, plaintiff presents a rambling and disorganized discussion regarding a range of topics”). 

Therefore, plaintiff’s motion will be denied. A separate order accompanies this memorandum 

opinion. 

_________/s/_____________ 

AMIT P. MEHTA

United States District Judge

Date: March 18, 2021 

3/18/2021
Virginia L. WARREN and Ron Warren, Appellants, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee FOR ARMT 2005-5 and Marsh Creek Owners Association, Inc., Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-2051

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed September 18, 2018 Rehearing Denied October 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey Allen DOVE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3406

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed November 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2020280EN.01000401.xml

| 25.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9856 – M&G Investment Management/Baring Asset Management/Tunstall Group Holdings)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 280/04)

On 8 July 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9856. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9856. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---