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

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

I, Kevin J. Kennedy, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report onForm 10-K of Avaya Inc.; 

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 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 allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’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 overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: December 7, 2010
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 14

- 00204

- CR Benito Aguilar GARZA , Jr., Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas Trial Court No. 10

- 05

- 13044

- CR Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 16, 2014
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
On J une 17 , 2014, we notified Appellant Benito Aguilar Garza, Jr. that the trial court clerk filed a notification of late clerk’s record stating that the clerk’s record has not been filed because (1) Appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’ s fee for preparing the record, and (2) Appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. We ordered Appellant to provide written proof to this court on or before J une 27 , 2014, that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) Appellant is entitled to appeal04

- 14

- 00204

- CR without paying the clerk’s fee. We warned Appellant that if he failed to respond within the time provided, this appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 37.3(b). To date, Appellant has not filed any response with this court

. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See id. R. 37.3(b).

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2

-
Erick U. GALICIA, Appellant, v. REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION, Appellee.

No. 1D18-342

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 11, 2019

Erick Galicia, pro se, Appellant.

Norman A. Blessing, General Counsel, Amanda L. Neff, Deputy General Counsel, and Cristina A. Velez, Appellate Counsel, Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Roberts, Kelsey, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: August 15, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Mary B. Mather                                                   |
|------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   | Mary B. Mather                                                       |
|                   |   | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 917 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 917

   Recognizing November 2024 as ``National Family Caregivers Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 21, 2024

    Mr. Casey (for himself and Ms. Collins) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 
                          Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Recognizing November 2024 as ``National Family Caregivers Month''.

Whereas, in 2020, 53,000,000 family caregivers in the United States provide 
        essential care to millions of people each year, providing unpaid care 
        worth an estimated $600,000,000,000 annually;
Whereas family caregivers play a vital role in the healthcare system of the 
        United States, supporting loved ones who have chronic illnesses, 
        disabilities, and are aging;
Whereas family caregivers, who are disproportionately women, often face 
        significant challenges including financial strain, physical and 
        emotional exhaustion, and social isolation; and
Whereas ``National Family Caregivers Month'' is an opportunity to recognize and 
        appreciate the contributions of family caregivers of all ages and to 
        advocate for policies that support family caregivers: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) recognizes November 2024 as ``National Family 
        Caregivers Month'';
            (2) commends the 53,000,000 family caregivers in the United 
        States who provide essential care to their loved ones and 
        chosen family each day;
            (3) recognizes the importance of the 2022 National Strategy 
        to Support Family Caregivers as a roadmap to better support 
        caregivers in the United States; and
            (4) encourages all people of the United States to learn 
        more about family caregiving and to support their loved ones 
        and neighbors who are providing care.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2017046EN.01002201.xml

| 13.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/22

---

Action brought on 9 December 2016 — RA v Court of Auditors

(Case T-874/16)

(2017/C 046/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: RA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 4 March 2016 failing to promote the applicant to grade AD 11; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 4 March 2016 failing to promote the applicant to grade AD 11;

| — | order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, by which the applicant raises a plea of illegality in respect of the promotion system in force at the Court of Auditors of the European Union, implemented by decision 53-2014 on promotions, in that it affects the appointing authority’s ability to identify in a methodical way the disparities in the method of appraising officials as applied by the various reporting officers of the institution according to their own subjective viewpoint. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, by which the applicant raises a plea of illegality in respect of the promotion system in force at the Court of Auditors of the European Union, implemented by decision 53-2014 on promotions, in that it affects the appointing authority’s ability to identify in a methodical way the disparities in the method of appraising officials as applied by the various reporting officers of the institution according to their own subjective viewpoint.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of 4 May 2016 failing to promote the applicant to grade AD 11 infringes Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in so far as the appointing authority did not carry out a comparative examination of the applicant’s merits on a basis of equality and objectivity, using comparable sources of information. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of 4 May 2016 failing to promote the applicant to grade AD 11 infringes Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in so far as the appointing authority did not carry out a comparative examination of the applicant’s merits on a basis of equality and objectivity, using comparable sources of information.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the statement of reasons in the response dismissing the complaint shows that the contested decision is vitiated by several manifest errors of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the statement of reasons in the response dismissing the complaint shows that the contested decision is vitiated by several manifest errors of assessment.

---
# C_2016251EN.01004001.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/40

---

Action brought on 13 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — WE Brand (EW)

(Case T-241/16)

(2016/C 251/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: WE Brand Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘EW’ — Application for registration No 12 326 468

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2016 in Case R 426/2015-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2022213EN.01000801.xml

| 30.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — Berlin Chemie A. Menarini SRL v Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii Bucureşti — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti

(Case C-333/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 44 - Place of supply of services - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 - Article 11(1) - Provision of services - Point of reference for tax purposes - Concept of a ‘fixed establishment’ - Company from one Member State affiliated to a company located in another Member State - Suitable structure in terms of human and technical resources - Ability to receive and use the services for the fixed establishment’s own needs - Marketing, regulatory, advertising and representation services provided by a related company to the recipient company)

(2022/C 213/08)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Berlin Chemie A. Menarini SRL

Defendant: Administraţia Fiscală pentru Contribuabili Mijlocii Bucureşti — Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Bucureşti

Intervener: Berlin Chemie AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, and Article 11(1) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that a company which has its registered office in one Member State does not have a fixed establishment in another Member State on the ground that that company owns a subsidiary there that makes available to it human and technical resources under contracts by means of which that subsidiary provides, exclusively to it, marketing, regulatory, advertising and representation services that are capable of having a direct influence on the volume of its sales.

---

(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.

---
Exhibit 99.1

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Luc Chartrand,  Chief Executive Officer of EnterraEnergy Trust. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

| (1) |  | the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the    fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the    requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15    U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|-----|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|     |
| (2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in    all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                         |

> 
 

```
 /s/ Luc Chartrand
					   	 																Luc Chartrand
                                           			 														Chief Executive Officer
													                                            				March, 2004
```
STATE of Louisiana v. Tyderius K. REED

NO. 2019-KH-0255

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

*1131WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
# C_2016305EN.01005001.xml

| 22.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/50

---

Action brought on 4 July 2016 — Brita v EUIPO — Aquis Wasser-Luft-Systeme (maxima)

(Case T-356/16)

(2016/C 305/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Brita GmbH (Taunusstein, Germany) (represented by: S. Maaßen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aquis Wasser-Luft-Systeme GmbH (Rebstein, Switzerland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: International registration No 1 128 639 designating the European Union

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2016 in Case R 99/2015-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of 11 November 2014 and alter them to the effect that the opposition is granted and the extension of international registration IR 1128639 ‘MAXIMA’ to the field of EU trade marks is denied; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of 11 November 2014 and alter them to the effect that the opposition is granted and the extension of international registration IR 1128639 ‘MAXIMA’ to the field of EU trade marks is denied;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the action and the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the action and the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
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 Cygni Investments, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned principal executive officer of the Company, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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:  August 14, 2008

/s/ Carl Suter
Carl Suter, President & Treasurer
(Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MICHAEL CLAYTON WALTERS, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 3:04-CV-1485-N 

) ECF

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, ) 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, )

Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and

the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, I am of

the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are

adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of

the United States Magistrate Judge are adopted.

SIGNED May 24, 2006.

 

DAVID C. GODBEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-01485-N Document 13 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 121
Case 24-30310-mvl7    Doc 10    Filed 04/03/24    Entered 04/03/24 14:07:04    Desc MainDocument      Page 1 of 8

Case 24-30310-mvl7    Doc 10    Filed 04/03/24    Entered 04/03/24 14:07:04    Desc MainDocument      Page 2 of 8

Case 24-30310-mvl7    Doc 10    Filed 04/03/24    Entered 04/03/24 14:07:04    Desc MainDocument      Page 3 of 8

Case 24-30310-mvl7    Doc 10    Filed 04/03/24    Entered 04/03/24 14:07:04    Desc MainDocument      Page 4 of 8

Case 24-30310-mvl7    Doc 10    Filed 04/03/24    Entered 04/03/24 14:07:04    Desc MainDocument      Page 5 of 8

Case 24-30310-mvl7    Doc 10    Filed 04/03/24    Entered 04/03/24 14:07:04    Desc MainDocument      Page 6 of 8

Case 24-30310-mvl7    Doc 10    Filed 04/03/24    Entered 04/03/24 14:07:04    Desc MainDocument      Page 7 of 8

Case 24-30310-mvl7    Doc 10    Filed 04/03/24    Entered 04/03/24 14:07:04    Desc MainDocument      Page 8 of 8
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 12

- 00885

- CV

Trial Court Cause

Number: 1030221

Style: Romie Neal

v Seyed M. Hejazi and Seyed P. Hajazi

Date motion filed * : January 16, 2013

Type of motion: M otion to extend time to file notice of appeal

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other: _____________________________________

Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of

Date: M a rch 18, 2013
Lawrence E. KING, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Krisha L. KING (Weiss), Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0376

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.