alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.01**CERTIFICATION**I, Bruce L. Cleland, Chief Executive Officer of Campbell & Company, Inc., the managing owner ofCampbell Alternative Asset Trust (the “Trust”), do hereby certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the Trust;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 lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period 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 financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented 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 Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. 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 (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.         By: /s/ Bruce L. Cleland Bruce L. Cleland      Chief Executive Officer      March 31, 2006  
E 2
**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 Quarterly Report of United Energy Corp. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brian King, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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.


Dated:August
              14, 2007
            By:
            /s/
              Brian KingBrian
                KingChief
                Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMIR LOMAX,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 264 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of June, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Leo J. Coyle and Ann N. Coyle, His Wife, and Philip Hanick, Also Known as Philip Henick, and Jane Hanick, His Wife (Name Jane Fictitious ; Real First Name Unknown to Complainant), *Appellants,*v. S. Bobo Dean Corporation, a Florida Corporation, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Opinion Filed October 12, 1927.

O. *D. Batchelor,*Solicitor for Appellants;

*Semple & Hirschman,*and *James M. Carson,*Solicitors for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

In this case suit was brought to foreclose a mortgage, the bill being filed on June 30th, 1927. On July 13th, 1927, notice of application for a receiver in aid of foreclosure was filed. On August 4th, 1927, an *638order was made appointing a receiver of the property-described in the mortgage, together with all the rents, income and profits thereof. The receiver was required to take possession of the property and collect the rents, income and profits therefrom and take hold and manage the property during the pendency of the action subject to the further order of the court.

On the 8th day of August the respondents filed their notice of appeal from the order appointing the receiver and also applied for an order of supersedeas which* was granted and the bond fixed at $2,000.00. The chancellor within his legal authority to grant a supersedeas on appeal from an interlocutory order, fixed the conditions of the supersedeas and thereby limited its effect not to stay or delay the proceedings in the main suit in the court below. This brings the entire record before this Court.

The bill of complaint contains adequate allegations to entitle complainants to the equitable relief prayed.

The case comes before this Court at this time upon a motion for increase of the supersedeas bond, it being alleged that the property involved is of the value of approximately $100,000.00.

The supersedeas on appeal from the order appointing the receiver under the facts above stated will not be held to stay the proceedings of the suit 'in the court below, but only operates to prevent the functioning of a receiver and suspends the effect of the order appointing the receiver until disposition of the appeal in this Court, or until the case is otherwise disposed of in the court below.

It appears from the allegations of the motion pending before this Court that a bond in the sum of $2,000.00 is adequate to protect the complainant from any loss which might be sustained by reason of the suspension of the interlocutory order appointing the receiver and as the *639supersedeas of this order does not affect the rights of the parties to otherwise proceed with the litigation the same as if no interlocutory order had been made, the motion for increase of supersedeas bond is denied.

It is so ordered.

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

Ellis, C. J., and Strum, J., concur in the opinion.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - (-)products_maps(7)
              - products_publications(14)
              - multimedia_video(5)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)

## By Location

              - alaska(15)
              - arizona(1)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(11)
              - colorado(10)
              - connecticut(1)
              - idaho(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - maine(2)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - missouri(2)
              - montana(3)
              - (-)nevada(7)
              - new mexico(6)
              - new york(1)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - pennsylvania(3)
              - rhode island(1)
              - south dakota(3)
              - texas(1)
              - utah(14)
              - virginia(1)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

map        January 1, 1977        Geochemical and generalized geologic map showing distribution of iron in the Round Mountain Quadrangle, Nye County, Nevada

map        January 1, 1972        Geochemical, aeromagnetic, and generalized geologic maps showing distribution and abundance of molybdenum and zinc, Golconda and Iron Point quadrangles, Humboldt County, Nevada

map        January 1, 1971        Geochemical, aeromagnetic, and generalized geologic maps showing distribution and abundance of mercury and arsenic, Golconda and Iron Point quadrangles, Humboldt County, Nevada

map        January 1, 1971        Geochemical, aeromagnetic, and generalized geologic maps showing distribution and abundance of lead and silver, Golconda and Iron Point quadrangles, Humboldt County, Nevada

map        January 1, 1971        Geochemical, aeromagnetic, and generalized geologic maps showing distribution and abundance of gold and copper, Golconda and Iron Point quadrangles, Humboldt County, Nevada

map        January 1, 1973        Geochemical, aeromagnetic, and generalized geologic maps showing distribution and abundance of mercury, arsenic, antimony, and tungsten, Goldrun Creek quadrangle, Humboldt County, Nevada

map        January 1, 1973        Geochemical, aeromagnetic, and generalized geologic maps showing distribution and abundance of lead, silver, gold, and copper, Goldrun Creek Quadrangle, Humboldt County, Nevada
Michael MCGHEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3147

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 5, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
James C. GRAHAM v. STATE of Mississippi

2017-CT-00336-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: December 18, 2018 Closed: February 21, 2019

Certiorari - Denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of GeoPetro Resources Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, StuartJ. Doshi , Chief Executive Officer, and J. Chris Steinhauser, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tohis knowledge, that:

 
| (1)    |   | The Report fully  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                   |
| (2)    |   | The information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the  financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 
| Dated: August 10,  2009 | /s/ Stuart J. Doshi                 |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                         | Stuart J. Doshi                     |
|                         | President, Chief  Executive Officer |
|                         | and Chairman of the  Board          |
|                         |                                |
| Dated: August 10,  2009 | /s/ J. Chris  Steinhauser           |
|                         | J. Chris Steinhauser                |
|                         | Chief Financial Officer             |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to GeoPetroResources Company and will be retained by GeoPetro Resources Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----

| * |   | This certification is  being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be  incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before  or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in  such filing. |
|---|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

----
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Chris Diorio, Ph.D.,
certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Impinj, Inc.; and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: April 30, 2018



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Chris Diorio                                     
|Chris Diorio, Ph.D.                                  
|Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 21-1413V

UNPUBLISHED

EDUARDO ATJIAN, II,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: February 14, 2022

Withdrawal of petition; Order 

concluding proceedings

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS1

On June 1, 2021, Eduardo Atjian, II, filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 34.

2

Petitioner alleged that he suffered injuries after receiving human papillomavirus 

vaccinations on July 3, 2019, and September 16, 2019. ECF no. 1.

Because a decision had not been issued within the time specified in Vaccine 

Rule 10(b), a notice issued advising that “that the petitioner may withdraw the petition 

under section 300aa—21(b) of this title or the petitioner may choose under section 

300aa—21(b) of this title to have the petition remain before the special master.” 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa—12(g). On February 7, 2022, Petitioner timely filed a notice to withdraw 

the petition pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—21(b). 

In light of Petitioner’s election to withdraw the petition pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa—21(b) (promulgated as Vaccine Rule 10(d)), Petitioner’s request to withdraw the

petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, this Order hereby notifies the Clerk of Court that 

proceedings “on the merits” of this petition are now concluded, but no judgment 

“on the merits” should be entered by the Clerk’s Office.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 Although I have not formally designated this Order for publication, I am required to post it on the United 

States Court of Federal Claims' website because it contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this 

case, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal 

Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Order will be available 

to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, 

I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755.
2

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
# C_2021368EN.01002101.xml

| 13.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — JT v EUIPO — Carrasco Pirard (QUILAPAYÚN)

(Case T-197/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark QUILAPAYÚN - Relative ground for refusal - No well-known mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention - Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 368/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: JT (represented by: A. Mena Valenzuela, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Eduardo Carrasco Pirard (Santiago, Chile) and the seven other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2020 (Case R 1518/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, JT and, on the other hand, Mr Carrasco Pirard and the other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO whose names are listed in the annex.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders JT to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders JT to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.

---
# C_2021357EN.01002201.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Kneissl Holding v EUIPO — LS 9 (KNEISSL)

(Case T-65/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark KNEISSL - Partial revocation - No genuine use of the mark - Extent of use - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 22(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 10(3) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Abuse of rights)

(2021/C 357/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kneissl Holding GmbH (Ebbs, Austria) (represented by: O. Nilgen and A. Kockläuner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, D. Hanf and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: LS 9 GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2019 (Case R 2265/2018-2), relating to revocation proceedings between LS 9 and Kneissl Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kneissl Holding GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kneissl Holding GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

---
Order entered April 6, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00135-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.T.W., S.K.W., K.J.W., K.M.W., AND C.R.W., 

MINOR CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-52418-2017

ORDER

Although appellant has requested the reporter’s record and is entitled to 

proceed without payment of costs under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145(a), the

reporter’s record has not been filed. Accordingly, we ORDER Cindy Bardwell, as 

the Official Court Reporter for the 429th Judicial District Court, to file the 

reporter’s record no later than May 6, 2020.

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. 

Bardwell; LaTresta Ginyard, as the former court reporter for the 429th Judicial 

District Court; and, the parties. 

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
# C_2022463EN.01000401.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Gmina Wieliszew v Syndyk masy upadłości Spółdzielczego Banku Rzemiosła i Rolnictwa w Wołominie w upadłości likwidacyjnej

(Case C-698/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Structural Funds - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Cohesion Fund - Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 - European Union funding - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Grant agreement - Funds paid to a beneficiary into an account in an insolvent bank - National legislation not excluding those funds from the insolvency estate of that bank)

(2022/C 463/04)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gmina Wieliszew

Defendant: Syndyk masy upadłości Spółdzielczego Banku Rzemiosła i Rolnictwa w Wołominie w upadłości likwidacyjnej

intervener: Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(5) and Articles 3, 4, 57, 70 and 80 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 423/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, Articles 11, 54, 56 and 58 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, and Article 2(i), Articles 3 and 4, and Article 72(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which, first, does not enable an entity that has received funds in the framework of programmes co-financed by the EU budget, where those funds have been paid into an account held at a bank which has subsequently been declared insolvent, to secure the exclusion of those funds from the insolvency estate of that bank, and, second, does not prescribe the exclusion of those funds from that insolvency estate.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---