alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Steven F. Udvar-Hazy, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of International Lease FinanceCorporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 11, 2006       /s/ Steven F. Udvar-Hazy         STEVEN F. UDVAR-HAZY    Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
1962.

#### Andrews *v.*McGee.

Complaint, from city court of McRae — Judge McRae. May 22, 1909.

Submitted July 19, —

Decided October 5, 1909.

*Graham & Graham,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. A. Wooten,*contra.

Powell, J.

Under tlie evidence appearing in the record, the case was one for solution by the jury; and the court erred in directing a verdict.

*Judgment reversed.*
K.W., Mother of L.D. and M.D., Children, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3318

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2022011EN.01002501.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Phi Group v EUIPO — Gruppo Cadoro (REDELLO)

(Case T-532/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark REDELLO - Earlier EU figurative mark CADELLO 88 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 11/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Phi Group GmbH (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Campolini and L. Bidaine, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, V. Ruzek, and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gruppo Cadoro GmbH (Eglisau, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2020 (Case R 2677/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Gruppo Cadoro and Phi Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Phi Group GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Phi Group GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.

---
Exhibit 12.1 CERTIFICATION I, Stuart Rogers, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of MAX Resource Corp.;  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 report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The company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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company 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 company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the company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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting.  Date: April 28, 2014/s/ Stuart RogersStuart Rogers
Chief Executive Officer
Principal Executive Officer
**DAY 1 – Tuesday 24th February 2015**Dial in Access: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/590193581	            Dial +1 (937) 904-7822 Access Code: 247550#

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**REDAC Human Factors Subcommittee**

**Tec Edge Center, Dayton, Ohio**

Meeting Agenda, February 24 - 26, 2015

**DAY 2 - Wednesday 25th February 2015**Dial in Access: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/492511349                          Dial +1 (937) 904-7822 Access Code: 247550#

**DAY 3 – Thursday 26th February 2015**Dial in Access: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/422666389	             Dial +1 (937) 904-7822 Access Code: 247550#
STATE of Louisiana v. Kenneth W. HARPER

NO. 2018-KO-1533

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 25, 2019

Denied.
Ervin MARSHALL, Individually and on Behalf of His Acknowledged Minor Child Ervin Marshall, III v. Jared SANDIFER (Individually and in His Official Capacity as a Trooper with the Louisiana State Police), Michael D. Edmonson (Individually and in His Official Capacity as Colonel with the Louisiana State Police) and Louisiana State Police, Through Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

NO. 2018-C-1907

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 11, 2019

Denied.
Charles Lamont CASEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3009

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 15, 2019 Rehearing Denied February 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Jonathan Lee MITCHELL v. STATE

CR-16-0684

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 1, 2017 Reh. denied September 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Trycera Financial, Inc. (the "Company") for the three months ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bryan Kenyon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 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 results of operations of the Company.





Date: November 15, 2010
/s/ Bryan KenyonChief Financial Officer
IN the INTEREST OF C.B., a Child.

M.B., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian ad litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D18-3874

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 13.1

                                  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 on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004, of Grupo Financiero Galicia S.A. (the "Company") as filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on the date
hereof (the "Report") and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Antonio Garces, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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.

Date: May 26, 2005

                                         /s/ Antonio Garces
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Antonio Garces
                                         Chief Executive Officer

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Grupo Financiero Galicia S.A. and will be retained by Grupo
Financiero Galicia S.A. and furnished to the Commission or its staff upon
request.
Anthony ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3514

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

January 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Tammara ESTER, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2648

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 13, 2019]

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alexandra A. Folley, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

George Joseph Reres of Georges Reres Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Klingensmith, J.

The State appeals an order withholding adjudication of Tammara Ester's guilt. Prior to this, Ester had adjudication withheld for two unrelated felony charges. For the reasons stated below, we reverse.

Ester was charged by information with grand theft of property valued at $ 300 or more but less than $ 5,000, a third-degree felony. She entered an open, no-contest plea to the charge. During sentencing, the State objected to withholding adjudication of Ester's guilt because she had two previous felony withholds of adjudication, neither of which arose from the grand theft charge before the trial court. Ultimately, the trial court sentenced Ester to six months of community control followed by thirty-six months of probation and withheld adjudication of guilt, over the State's objection. This appeal followed.

Section 775.08435(1)(d), Florida Statutes (2018), states: "Notwithstanding any provision of this section, no adjudication of guilt shall be withheld for a third degree felony offense if the defendant has *two or more* prior withholdings of adjudication for a felony that did not arise from the same transaction as the current felony offense." (emphasis added).

Under the language of section 775.08435(1)(d), the trial judge in this case was prohibited from withholding adjudication. *See* *State v. Jean* , 114 So.3d 451, 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Accordingly, we reverse the sentence and remand for the trial court to re-sentence the defendant in accordance with section 775.08435. *See* *id.*

*Reversed and remanded.*

Conner and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
### Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(r eleased the week prior to November 9, 2021 

### )

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES :



### None Available

The above

- listed memorandum opinions c an be viewed online through the

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebra ska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/

.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

http s ://www.nebraska.gov/courts/s c cales/

.
# C_2020348EN.01000401.xml

| 19.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Erfurt (Germany) lodged on 24 June 2020 — A. G. E. v B AG

(Case C-276/20)

(2020/C 348/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Erfurt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A. G. E.

Defendant: B AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Under EU law, especially the principle of effectiveness, and for the purposes of European fundamental rights, must no deduction for actual use of the vehicle be applied to the damage sustained by the purchaser where the manufacturer of a vehicle or engine infringes European registration law and European emissions standards? Does that preclusion of any deduction apply where a manufacturer causes a customer intentional damage contrary to public policy? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Under EU law, especially the principle of effectiveness, and for the purposes of European fundamental rights, must no deduction for actual use of the vehicle be applied to the damage sustained by the purchaser where the manufacturer of a vehicle or engine infringes European registration law and European emissions standards? Does that preclusion of any deduction apply where a manufacturer causes a customer intentional damage contrary to public policy?

| 2. | Is the referring court an independent and impartial court or tribunal for the purpose of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with the third sentence of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the referring court an independent and impartial court or tribunal for the purpose of Article 267 TFEU, read in conjunction with the third sentence of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

---
Certificate Number: 17572-TXN-CC-038857874

17572-TXN-CC-038857874

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSELING

I CERTIFY that on September 11, 2024, at 2:47 o'clock PM PDT, Julrey Caesar

G Solis received from Dollar Learning Foundation, Inc., an agency approved

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 111 to provide credit counseling in the Northern District of

Texas, an individual [or group] briefing that complied with the provisions of 11

U.S.C. 109(h) and 111.

A debt repayment plan was not prepared. If a debt repayment plan was prepared, a

copy of the debt repayment plan is attached to this certificate.

This counseling session was conducted by internet.

Date: September 11, 2024 By: /s/Dorianne Santiago

Name: Dorianne Santiago

Title: Counselor

* Individuals who wish to file a bankruptcy case under title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy

Code are required to file with the United States Bankruptcy Court a completed certificate of

counseling from the nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency that provided the individual

the counseling services and a copy of the debt repayment plan, if any, developed through the

credit counseling agency. See 11 U.S.C. 109(h) and 521(b).

Case 24-43456-elm7 Doc 2 Filed 09/26/24 Entered 09/26/24 13:06:58 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
Fernando ESTEBAN ALTUNA, DOC #Y30629, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

Case No. 2D18-2588

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
April Dawn COURSON (Ricks-Daniels), Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1141

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2021053EN.01002402.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 25 November 2020 — Skatteverket v DSAB Destination Stockholm AB

(Case C-637/20)

(2021/C 53/32)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant and respondent: Skatteverket

Respondent and appellant: DSAB Destination Stockholm AB

Question referred

Must Article 30(a) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that a card, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which gives the cardholder the right to receive various services at a given place for a limited period of time and up to a certain value constitutes a voucher and, in such circumstances, constitutes a multi-purpose voucher?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2016/1065 of 27 June 2016 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the treatment of vouchers (OJ 2016 L 177, p. 9).

---
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of FCStone Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
2nd quarter 2009 ending February 28, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William J. Dunaway, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



|(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/ William J. Dunaway       
|William J. Dunaway           
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Financial Officer)

April 9, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
# C_2022318EN.01000301.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 26 de Barcelona — Spain) — KM v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

(Case C-625/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Article 4(1) - Indirect discrimination on ground of sex - National legislation providing that two or more total occupational invalidity pensions acquired under the same statutory social security scheme are incompatible - Compatibility of such pensions where they come under different statutory social security schemes - Finding of indirect discrimination on the basis of statistical data - Determination of the affected groups to be compared - Justification)

(2022/C 318/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 26 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KM

Defendant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prevents workers affiliated to social security from receiving a combination of two total occupational invalidity pensions where those pensions come under the same social security scheme, while permitting such a combination where those pensions come under different social security schemes, where that legislation places female workers at a particular disadvantage as compared with male workers, in particular in so far as that legislation permits a significantly higher proportion of male workers, determined on the basis of all male workers subject to that legislation, as compared with the corresponding proportion of female workers, to benefit from that combination and where that legislation is not justified by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on ground of sex.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.

---