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



CERTIFICATION



I, Larry Eastland, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Great American Family Parks, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2006;



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;



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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and 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 small business issuer is made known to us by others, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls 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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an quarterly report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);



(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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.



May 22, 2006



/s/ Larry Eastland



Larry Eastland

Chief Executive Officer
STATE of Louisiana v. Wayne THORNTON

NO. 2019-KK-0387

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 15, 2019

Stay denied. Writ denied.
Billy DAVIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0548

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
**Exhibit 4.29**

** **

*FederalSupervisory Service for Communications*

 

**AddendumNo. 2**

 

**toLicense No. 30255 (Account Series A 030157)****datedDecember 30, 2003**

 

The line “Start of services’ rendering (not later than)” of theLicensee title-page shall be revised to read as follows:

 

“June 30, 2006”

 

 
| **Deputy Manager,**                                 |       |               |
|-----------------------------------------------------|------------|--------------------|
| **Federal Supervisory Service  for Communications** |       | **S. A. Malyanov** |
| ** **                                          | ** ** |               |
| ** **                                          | ** ** |               |
|                                                |       | April 26, 2005     |

 

----
Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 1 of 27 PageID 317
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 2 of 27 PageID 318
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 3 of 27 PageID 319
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 4 of 27 PageID 320
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 5 of 27 PageID 321
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 6 of 27 PageID 322
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 7 of 27 PageID 323
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 8 of 27 PageID 324
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 9 of 27 PageID 325
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 10 of 27 PageID 326
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 11 of 27 PageID 327
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 12 of 27 PageID 328
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 13 of 27 PageID 329
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 14 of 27 PageID 330
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 15 of 27 PageID 331
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 16 of 27 PageID 332
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 17 of 27 PageID 333
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 18 of 27 PageID 334
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 19 of 27 PageID 335
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 20 of 27 PageID 336
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 21 of 27 PageID 337
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 22 of 27 PageID 338
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 23 of 27 PageID 339
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 24 of 27 PageID 340
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 25 of 27 PageID 341
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 26 of 27 PageID 342
 

 Case 3:03-cv-00618-L-AH Document 56 Filed 10/22/03 Page 27 of 27 PageID 343
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,Stuart J. Doshi, certify that:

 

1.           I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof GeoPetro Resources Company;

 

2.           Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.           Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.           The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:

 

(a)         Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

(b)        Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)         Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

 

5.           The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)         All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting whichare 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 involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 

 
| Date: May 13, 2008 | /s/ Stuart J. Doshi                                      |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                    | Stuart J. Doshi,  President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL DENNIS BELL,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 338 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of November, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
Certificate Number: 00281-TXN-DE-038855577

Bankruptcy Case Number: 24-42896

00281-TXN-DE-038855577

CERTIFICATE OF DEBTOR EDUCATION

I CERTIFY that on September 10, 2024, at 9:51 o'clock PM CDT, Floretta

Cunningham completed a course on personal financial management given by

internet by Tim Truman, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee, a provider approved

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 111 to provide an instructional course concerning personal

financial management in the Northern District of Texas.

Date: September 11, 2024 By: /s/Amy Tate-Almy

Name: Amy Tate-Almy

Title: Debtor Education Director

Case 24-42896-mxm13 Doc 19 Filed 09/12/24 Entered 09/12/24 19:12:38 Desc

Page 1 of 1
Case 3:03-cr-00148-L Document 25 Filed 07/29/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 64
 

 Case 3:03-cr-00148-L Document 25 Filed 07/29/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 65
# C_2020137EN.01003701.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/37

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad — Pazardzhik (Bulgaria), lodged on 29 January 2020 — SF v Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Plovdiv

(Case C-49/20)

(2020/C 137/50)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring Court

Rayonen sad — Pazardzhik

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SF

Defendant: Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Plovdiv

Questions referred

First question:

Must Article 2(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/849, (1) read in conjunction with recital 6 and Articles 4 and 5 thereof, be interpreted as precluding a general national legislative provision such as that in question in the main proceedings, under which domestic payments of BGN 10 000 or more are only to be made by transfer or deposit into a payment account and which, in the case of cash payments, disregards the person or the reason for making a cash payment, but rather applies to all cash payments between natural and legal persons?

Second question:

For the purposes of achieving the objective of the directive, in the light of recital 59 thereof, is solely the amount of the payment relevant, without it being dependant on whether the transaction is for consideration or not.

Third question:

Which criteria determine whether the transactions are open to abuse or are high-risk?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ 2015 L 141, p. 73).

---
# C_2021228EN.01001202.xml

| 14.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/12

---

Appeal brought on 16 December 2020 by smart things solutions GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2020 in Case T-48/19, smart things solutions v EUIPO — Samsung Electronics (smart:)things)

(Case C-681/20 P)

(2021/C 228/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: smart things solutions GmbH (represented by: R. Dissmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Samsung Electronics GmbH

By order of 24 March 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that smart things solutions GmbH should bear its own costs.

---
Terence LEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-666

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 14, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
National Airport Pavement Test Facility (RPD 138)

Contract Funds ($K)

TOTALS:

*

RPD 138: National Airport PavementTest FacilityRequirements for 2014
|  Pre and post traffic testing.                    | 200   |
|----------------------------------------------------|-------|
|  Data processing and database management.         | 450   |
|  Maintenance and equipment.                       | 673   |
|  Pavement instrumentation.                        | 400   |
|  Pavement Specifications and materials testing.   | 400   |
|  Demolition and reconstruction.                   | 750   |
| TOTAL                                              | 2,873 |

RPD 138: National Airport PavementTest FacilityRequirements for 2015
|  Pre and post traffic testing.                    | 400   |
|----------------------------------------------------|-------|
|  Data processing and database management.         | 450   |
|  Maintenance and equipment.                       | 750   |
|  Pavement instrumentation.                        | 350   |
|  Pavement specifications and materials testing.   | 350   |
|  Demolition and reconstruction.                   | 600   |
| TOTAL                                              | 2,900 |
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31729]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

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 6, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 20, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 565 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-974, K2025-973.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-31729 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
# C_2016364EN.01002302.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/23

---

Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Tetra Pharm (1997) v EUIPO — Sebapharma (SeboCalm)

(Case T-441/16)

(2016/C 364/24)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tetra Pharm (1997) Ltd (Tel Aviv, Israel) (represented by: A. Gorzkiewicz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sebapharma GmbH & Co. KG (Boppard, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SeboCalm’ — EU trade mark application No 12 014 461

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 in Case R 852/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party before EUIPO to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party before EUIPO to bear the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 7(2), 75 and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 7(2), 75 and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
1 John T. Boyd, Chi ef Justice (R et.), Se venth Co urt of Appeals, si tting by

assignment. NO. 07-02-0426-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL E DECEMBER 31 , 2002

______________________________ AMANDA S. HOBGOOD, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 140 TH DISTRIC T COURT O F LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2001-438167; H ONORABLE JIM BOB DARNELL, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ., and BOYD, S.J. 1 Appellant

Amanda Sue Hobgood appeals a conv iction for manufacture/delivery of a controlled substance. We dismiss for want of jurisdic tion.2 Furt her references to a R ule of Civi l Procedure w ill be by reference to “TR

AP ____.” 2 BACKGROUND A manda Sue Hobgood w as convic

ted of manufacture/deliv ery of a cont rolle d substance, to wit: methamphetamine PG1 less than 200grams but at least 4 grams. On September

6, 2002, she was sentenced to 17 years i n the Texas Dep artment of Crimi nal Justice-Ins titutional D ivisio n. On October 8, 2002, she filed a notice of appeal. LAW In a criminal case , appeal is per fected by timel y filing a notice of appeal. T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a). 2 The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the day sentence is imposed or after t he day the tr ial court ent ers an appealable order, unle ss a timely motion for new trial is filed. TRAP 26.2(a). A motion for new trial may be filed by

a criminal defendantno later than 30days after thedate sentence is i mposed in open cour t. TRAP 21.4(a). The time for filing a notice of appeal may be extended fo r 15 days under certain circumstances. TRAP 26.3. If the t ime for filing a n otice of appeal is to be extended, both a notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time whic h complies w ith TRAP 10.5(b) must be filed wi thin the 15 day period. TRAP 26.3; Olivo v . State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 523- 25 (Tex.Cr im.App. 1996).3

An untimely-file d not ice of appeal wil l not invo ke the juris diction of the cour t of appeals. See Stat e v. Rie we , 13 S.W.2d 408, 411 (Tex.Cri m.App. 2000). Thus, i f an appeal is not time ly perf ecte d, a c ourt of a ppe als d oes n ot ha ve jurisdic tion to address the merits of the appeal, and can take no action ot her than to dis miss the appeal. Slat on v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Cri m.App. 1998); Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 523-25. ANALYSIS AN D CONCLU SION Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely fil ed. A motion to ex tend time to file t he notice of appeal was not filed. Accordin gly, this court does not have juri sdiction over the appeal. Slaton , 981 S.W.2d at 210; Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 523. The appeal is dis missed for want of jurisdic tion. TRAP 39.8, 40.2, 43.2.

Phil Johnson Justice Do not publish
.
Curtis L. CAIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4114

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 11, 2019 Rehearing Denied March 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

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 Quarterly Report of Terra Nova Acquisition
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006
(the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, Vahan Kololian, Chief Executive 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, as amended; and

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

By: /s/ Vahan Kololian                                 Dated: August 15, 2006
    -----------------------------------
        Vahan Kololian
        Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer)
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60427 Summary Calendar

MICHAEL HENRY SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:98-CV-49-BrS

- - - - - - - - - - February 25, 1999 Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Henry Smith appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. He argues that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering the Bureau of Prisons to to accept his administrative appeal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED for essentially the reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v. Bureau of Prisons , No. 5:98cv49BrS (S.D. Miss. May 8, 1998).