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

Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

I, Wallace Boyack, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended March 31, 2005, of Iron Star Development, Inc.

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in the quarterly report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
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 Rule 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
     material information relating to the registrant, including its
     consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
     entities, particularly during the period in which the quarterly report
     is being prepared;
     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
     and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
     the quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c) presented in the quarterly report the conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
     evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
     c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
     evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or other persons performing
equivalent functions):

     a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
     record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
     identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
     internal controls; and
     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
     other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
     internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in the
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
control subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

Date: May 11, 2005

s/Wallace Boyack
------------------------
Wallace Boyack      Name
President/Chief Executive Officer/Director
STIPULATION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT TRANSUNION LLC; PROPOSED ORDER - 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SCOTT J. SAGARIA (SBN 217981)

ELLIOT W. GALE (SBN 263326)

JOE ANGELO (SBN 268542)

SAGARIA LAW, P.C.

2033 Gateway Place, 6th Floor

San Jose, CA 95110

408-279-2288 ph: 408-279-2299 fax

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – OAKLAND DIVISION

STACY CASE,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRANSUNION, LLC; et. al.,

 

 Defendants.

Case No.: 4:17-CV-00399-JSW

STIPULATION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT

TRANSUNION, LLC; PROPOSED ORDER

TO THE COURT, CLERK OF COURT, AND ALL PARTIES:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff Stacy Case and defendant 

TransUnion, LLC, that TransUnion, LLC be dismissed from this action with prejudice pursuant 

to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, section 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and that each party shall bear its 

own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

//

//

Case 4:17-cv-00399-JSW Document 23 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT TRANSUNION LLC; PROPOSED ORDER - 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DATED: March 28, 2017 Sagaria Law, P.C.

By: /s/ Elliot W. Gale

Elliot W. Gale

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Stacy Case

DATED: March 28, 2017 Schuckit & Associates, P.C.

By: /s/ Christopher A. Ferguson

 Christopher A. Ferguson

Attorneys for Defendant

TransUnion, LLC

I, Elliot Gale, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file this 

Stipulation. I hereby attest that Christopher A. Ferguson has concurred in this filing.

/s/ Elliot Gale

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the Parties, Defendant TransUnion, LLC is dismissed with 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

Jeffrey S. White 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:17-cv-00399-JSW Document 23 Filed 03/28/17 Page 2 of 2
First Amendment to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.7 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This First Amendment to Employment Agreement (the
“Amendment”) is made this 31st day of December 2008 between BIOMET, INC., an Indiana corporation (“Biomet”), and Roger P. Van Broeck (“Executive”). All capitalized terms used herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement (defined below), unless otherwise defined herein. 
 WHEREAS, Biomet and Executive
entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated as of February 1, 2008 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, Biomet and Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth herein; 
 NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Biomet and Executive hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Section 9(e): Termination by the Company Other Than For Cause, Death or Disability, or by the Executive for Good Reason, Following a
Change of Control. Section 9(e)(i) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to delete the final sentence of Section 9(e)(i) in its entirety and replace it with the following: 
 “The total amount of the Change of Control Severance Benefit will be paid: (1) if the Change in Control constitutes a change in control event
within the meaning of Treasury Regulation 1.409A-3(i)(5), in a lump sum as soon as administratively practicable (but in no event later than 30 days) following the Date of Termination or (2) if the Change of Control does not constitute a change
in control event within the meaning of Treasury Regulation 1.409A-3(i)(5), in equal, ratable installments in accordance with the Company’s regular payroll policies over the course of the Non-Compete Period.” 
 2. Miscellaneous. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This Amendment
may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 
 *    *    *    *    * 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this First Amendment to Employment Agreement on the
date first set forth above. 
  

			
	BIOMET, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Bradley J. Tandy

	Name:	 	Bradley J. Tandy
	Title:	 	Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary
	
	EXECUTIVE
	
	 /s/ Roger P. Van Broeck

	Name:	 	Roger P. Van Broeck
Craig A. SMITH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-2126

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 13, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is denied.
PEOPLE'S TRUST INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Teresa SIRVAS and Hugo Sirvas, Appellees.

No. 3D18-813

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 1, 2019

White & Case, LLP, Raoul G. Cantero, Ryan A. Ulloa and Anta P. Plowden ; Brett R. Frankel and Jonathan M. Sabghir (Deerfield Beach), for appellant.

McLuskey, McDonald & Hughes, P.A., John W. McLuskey, John E. Hughes, III and Lisa A. Riddle, for appellees.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Acosta*, 259 So.3d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4827 JUAN GONZALEZ GOMEZ, a/k/a Isidre

Enrique German-Campos, a/k/a

Bossman,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville.

Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge.

(CR-01-10)

Submitted: April 9, 2002

Decided: April 29, 2002

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Ronald C. True, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J.

Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Thomas R. Ascik, Assistant

United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Juan Gonzalez Gomez appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841 and 846 (West

1994 & Supp. 2001). Finding no error, we affirm. 

Gomez contends the district court abused its discretion in admitting

evidence of his July 1999 arrest for possessing methamphetamine. We

review the district court’s decision to admit evidence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Murray, 65 F.3d 1161, 1170 (4th Cir. 1995).

Gomez’s July 1999 arrest for possession of methamphetamine

occurred during the time frame charged in the indictment. We therefore find the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this

evidence. 

Gomez contends the district court erred in denying his post-verdict

motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial. A jury’s verdict

must be upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the record

to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). In

determining whether the evidence in the record is substantial, we

view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and

inquire whether there is evidence that a reasonable finder of fact

could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a

defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Burgos,

94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not review the credibility of witnesses

and assume the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony for

the government. United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir.

1998). Gomez argues it was not reasonable for the jury to believe the

testimony of his co-conspirators. Because we do not review the credibility of witnesses, we find Gomez’s claims meritless. 

2 UNITED STATES v. GOMEZ
For these reasons, we affirm Gomez’s conviction and sentence. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. GOMEZ 3
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

I, Nicholas V. Chater, Chief Financial Officer of Tri-S Security Corporation (the
Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 14, 2008



/s/ Nicolas V. ChaterNicholas V. ChaterChief Financial Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALDEN GAJO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHICAGO BRAND, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00380-EMC 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND 

ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT

On June 8, 2017, the Court granted Defendants‟ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs‟ claims. See

Docket No. 30. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days if he 

wished to pursue his claims. Id. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint before the July 10, 

2017 deadline, and has not filed one to date. Accordingly, in their case management statement, 

Defendants request the case be dismissed with prejudice. See Docket No. 32 at 2. Defendants‟

request is not a properly noticed motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 41(c).

Nevertheless, the Court may dismiss the action on its own motion. See Link v. Wabash R. 

Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff‟s action 

with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”); id. at 630 (“The 

authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an 

„inherent power,‟ governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to 

manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.”). 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint as ordered by the 

Court, and has not sought leave of Court for additional time to do so. Accordingly, the Court 

hereby dismisses the case with prejudice and vacates the Case Management Conference 

calendared for August 24, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

The Clerk of the Court is hereby ordered to enter final judgment for Defendants in 

accordance with this order and to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2017

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
                                               (Updated as of February 21, 2001)

                       SANTA FE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

                              SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES

Arab Drilling & Workover Company
Caspian Drilling Company Limited
Desert Rig Operations, Inc.
Fortress Energy Services LLC
Key International Drilling Company Limited
Logistics Forwarding Company, Inc.
Merak Petroleum Base
Nigerian Santa Fe Joint Ventures
Oilfield Services, Inc.
P. T. Santa Fe-Pomeroy Indonesia
P. T. Santa Fe Supraco Indonesia
Platform Capital N.V.
Platform Financial N.V.
SAFEMAL Drilling Sdn. Bhd.
Santa Fe AG
Santa Fe Communications, Inc.
Santa Fe Construction Co.
Santa Fe Drilling Company (Canada) Limited
Santa Fe Drilling Company (Italy) S.r.l.
Santa Fe Drilling Company (North Caspian) Limited
Santa Fe Drilling Company (North Sea) Limited
Santa Fe Drilling Company (Overseas) Limited
Santa Fe Drilling Company (U.K.) Limited
Santa Fe Drilling (N.A.) N.V.
Santa Fe Drilling (Nigeria) Limited
Santa Fe Drilling Operations, Inc.
Santa Fe Drilling Services (North Sea) Limited
Santa Fe Drilling Venezuela, C.A.
Santa Fe Holding Company (North Sea) Limited
Santa Fe International Services, Inc.
Santa Fe Nederland B.V.
Santa Fe (Norge) AS
Santa Fe Operations (Nigeria) Limited
Santa Fe Services Netherlands B.V.
Santa Fe Techserv (North Sea) Limited
Saudi Drilling Company Limited
Sphere Supply, Inc.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

October 4, 2012

t0927

Order 

October 4, 2012

144967

BRONSON METHODIST HOSPITAL,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144967

COA: 300229

Kalamazoo CC: 2008-000640-NF

AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 24, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Stephanie COFFEY, Appellant, v. Willie R. PYFROM, Estella M. Pyfrom and Depositor's Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 4D18-3183

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned
officers of International Shipping Enterprises, Inc., (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |  |  |                        
|------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                    |  | 
|Dated: May 16, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Angeliki Frangou   
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                    |  | 
|Dated: May 16, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Angeliki Frangou   
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer



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.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ST. PAUL REINSURANCE COMPANY

LIMITED LONDON,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

THE FORT MILLER GROUP, INC.,

THE FORT MILLER COMPANY,

INC., and BEECHE SYSTEMS

CORPORATION,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C05-1912 BZ

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

Following a telephonic discovery conference on August 19,

2005, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants must provide

complete and accurate responses to the discovery requests

discussed in plaintiff’s August 16, 2005 letter by Friday,

August 26, 2005. The hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss

St. Paul Reinsurance Company Limited London’s Complaint or, in

the alternative, to transfer action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1404(a) and 1406(a) is continued to October 12, 2005, at 

Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 27 Filed 08/22/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

10:00 a.m., in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, Federal Building, 450

Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102. Any

opposition to defendants’ motion must be filed no later than

September 14, 2005. Any reply must be filed no later than

September 21, 2005. Nothing in this order alters the schedule

for the motion of Robison Prezioso, Inc. to intervene, which

is currently set to be heard on September 21, 2005. 

Dated: August 22, 2005

Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\ST. PAUL REINSURANCE\AMEND.SCHEDULING3.ORDER.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 27 Filed 08/22/05 Page 2 of 2
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





I, Forres
McGraw, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of
Espre Solutions, Inc., and Subsidiaries on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such quarterly
report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Espre Solutions, Inc., and
Subsidiaries.








Dated:
May 20,
2008                                                                                                           By:  /  s/ Forres
McGraw


Forres
McGraw, Chief Financial Officer
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 352 

Designating the week of September 6 through September 10, 2021, as 

‘‘National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 10, 2021 

Mr. TUBERVILLE (for himself and Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the week of September 6 through September 

10, 2021, as ‘‘National Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities Week’’. 

Whereas historically Black colleges and universities are degree-granting institutions established prior to 1964 with 

the principal mission of educating Black individuals in 

the United States; 

Whereas there are over 100 accredited historically Black colleges and universities located throughout 19 States, the 

District of Columbia, and the United States Virgin Islands; 

Whereas historically Black colleges and universities have a 

rich heritage and have played a prominent role in the history of the United States; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 352 IS 

Whereas historically Black colleges and universities have provided, and continue to provide, a high-quality education 

that allows students at those colleges and universities to 

attain their full potential through higher education; 

Whereas historically Black colleges and universities serve as 

important engines of economic growth and public service; 

and 

Whereas the achievements and goals of historically Black colleges and universities are deserving of national recognition: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates the week of September 6 through 

3 September 10, 2021, as ‘‘National Historically 

4 Black Colleges and Universities Week’’; 

5 (2) declares that steps should be taken to raise 

6 awareness of the contributions of historically Black 

7 colleges and universities; and 

8 (3) calls on the people of the United States to 

9 observe the week with appropriate ceremonies, activi10 ties, and programs to demonstrate support for his11 torically Black colleges and universities in the 

12 United States. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS