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

CERTIFICATIONS OF CFO PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Colin V. Hall, certify that

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Solanex
Management Inc;

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
registrant as of and for the periods presented in this report;

4. I, the registrants certifying officer, am responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (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, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, 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 this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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 financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has affected, or is reasonably likely to affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. I, the registrants certifying officer, based on my most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, have disclosed
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All deficiencies and weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal controls over financial 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 in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.

March 28, 2008

/s/ Colin V. HallColin V. Hall 
  Acting Chief Financial Officer

---
Exhibit 13.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Olympus Pacific Minerals Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:
 
 (i)  the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),
 as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (ii)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Date: June 7, 2011
 /s/ David A. Seton
 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
 
 The foregoing certifications are being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
[No. 20949-7-II.

Division Two.

September 26, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Max Raymond Handley, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Mason County, No. 95-1-00274-9, James B. Sawyer II, J., entered June 27, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, J., concurred in by Houghton, C.J., and Bridge-water, J.
[No. 20503-3-II.

Division Two.

September 26, 1997.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*William C. Shoemaker, *Appellant,*and Kerry L. O’Connell, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 94-3-04611-9, Waldo F. Stone, J., entered March 1, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J., concurred in by Morgan and Armstrong, JJ.
Exhibit 23.1
  
  Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
   The Board of Directors:
  Procera  Networks, Inc.
  Los Gatos, California
   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-147944) and  S-3 (333-164314) of Procera Networks, Inc. of our reports dated March 11, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Procera Networks, Inc. as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, and our report dated March 11, 2010, with respect to the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, which reports appear in this December 31, 2009, annual report on Form 10-K of Procera Networks, Inc.
 
  /s/ PMB Helin Donovan
  San Francisco, California
  March 11, 2010
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [License No. 04/04-0307]

      ( print page 33806)    
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 04/04-0307 issued to CapitalSouth Partners SBIC Fund III, L.P. said license is hereby declared null and void.

United States Small Business Administration.

Thomas G. Morris,

Acting Associate Administrator, Director, Office of Liquidation, Office of Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2021-13494 Filed 6-24-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                89,523
<PP&E>                                      17,842,979
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,533
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,968,132
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,848,088
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,350,000
<COMMON>                                    54,331,687
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,968,132
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  699,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               109,778
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             109,778
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (809,487)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (809,487)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (809,487)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SE PTEMBER 14, 2016

NO. 03

- 15

- 00430

- CV

Sanadco Inc.

, a Texas Corporation; Mahmou d Ahmed Isba; Broadway Grocery, I nc.; Shariz, Inc.; Ruby & Sons Store, Inc.; and Rubina Noorani, Appel lant s

v.

Glenn Hegar, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Comptroller of Public Accounts; Office of Comptroller of Public Accounts for The State of Texas; and Ken Paxton, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of The State of Texas, Appell ee s

APPEAL FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON, AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on April 27, 2015. Having

reviewed the record , it appears that the C ourt lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the

C ourt dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. A ppellant s shall pay all costs relating to this

appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
#### Barbara Toth et al., Respondents, v Robert Newport, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Todd Newport, an Infant, Appellant, et al., Defendant. (And Another Related Action.)

Kane, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Tait, J.), entered April 11,1984 in Madison County, which denied defendant Robert Newport’s motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaints as to him and for reargument.

In the instant actions, plaintiffs seek to recover for injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on December 6, 1980. The accident occurred when the vehicle driven by plaintiff Barbara Toth was struck by an automobile owned by defendant Robert Newport and operated by his son, defendant Todd Newport.

After examinations before trial were conducted, defendant Robert Newport moved for summary judgment on the ground that defendant Todd Newport did not have permission to operate his father’s car. Special Term, by decision dated January 31, 1983, denied this motion, finding that issues of fact existed with respect to the questions of consent and authorization. Subsequently, by decision dated June 14, 1983, Special Term denied defendant Robert Newport’s motion for reargument.* This appeal ensued.

Initially, we note that the appeal from so much of the order as denied the motion to reargue is not appealable (Siegel, NY Prac § 254, at 314 [1978]). Turning to the merits of the appeal, we affirm. A review of the record reveals that questions of fact are presented *(see, Morris v Palmier Oil Co.,*94 AD2d 911; *D’Angelo v New York Tel. Co.,*54 AD2d 554; *Reyes v Sternberg,*27 AD2d 828). We note that there is no testimony that permission was ever expressly denied. Further, as observed by Special Term, the fact that defendant Todd Newport drove his father’s car on the night of the accident a substantial distance through populated areas creates an issue with respect to his assertion of lack of any driving experience. Therefore, insofar as it denied defendant Robert Newport’s motion for summary judgment, Special Term’s order must be affirmed.

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P.J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

*

 Defendant Robert Newport made a motion to renew/reargue. Special Term, noting that no new facts were alleged in this motion, properly treated the application as one for reargument.
Exhibit 99.1        Officer's Certificate regarding Annual Statement of
                    Compliance of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.

                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.
                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

     The undersigned officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies on behalf of the Company
and on his own behalf for purposes of the WAMU MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-AR1, as follows:

     1. I am the duly appointed, qualified and acting President of the Company.

     2. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to such terms in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement related to the
above-referenced series of Certificates.

     3. I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate
on behalf of the Company.

     4. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and performance under this Agreement has been made under my
supervision.

     5. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name as of March 15, 2004.





                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.


                     By: /s/ Michael L. Parker
                         Michael L. Parker,
                         President and Director
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

RONALD FIELDS, )

)

Plaintiff )

)

v. ) CIVIL NO. 1:13-CV-189 RLM

)

JOHN FOLK, et al., )

)

Defendants )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

A final pretrial conference was held in this cause on November 2, 2015. 

Plaintiff Ronald Fields appeared pro se; Rebecca Brelage and Betsy Isenberg

represented defendants Christoper Drake, Michelle Catterson, April Tackett,

Calvin Mayotte and John Folk. 

Defense counsel advised the court that they were unable to submit a

materially complete proposed pretrial order because Mr. Fields hadn’t provided a

list of his contentions, witnesses, and exhibits, and that the documents that were

submitted weren’t relevant to the sole issue remaining for trial– whether the

seizure of the two flat screen television sets was reasonable. 

Mindful of Mr. Fields pro se status, the court:

(1) Explained the nature of the documents Mr. Fields will be required

to submit if and when a new pretrial order is prepared;

(2) Summarized its April 8, 2015 oral findings and conclusions

regarding the defendant’s summary judgment motion [Doc. No. 133]; and
(3) Advised Mr. Fields that he will have the right to appeal that order after

the case is concluded; and

(4) Proposed that the final pretrial conference and trial be continued

to give Mr. Fields additional time to submit his contentions, witness and

exhibit lists, as required by the June 15, 2015 Order Concerning Pretrial

Conference and Trial [Doc. No. 148], and to give defense counsel an

opportunity to prepare and submit a new pretrial order. 

Without objection, the defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 157] was

DENIED; defendants’ oral motion to file a second motion for summary judgment

was GRANTED, and the November 17, 2015 trial date was VACATED. The

defendants’ summary judgment motion should be filed by December 7, 2015,

Mr. Fields response is due January 19, 2016, and any reply should be filed by

February 2, 2016. The final pretrial conference and trial will be rescheduled, if

necessary, following ruling on the summary judgment motion. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: November 4, 2015 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court

2
### First, Keeran argues that the district court erred by denying

his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call Shelli Hannah on his behalf at trial. Keeran asserted that, unbeknownst to him, Hannah forged her estranged husband's signature on a check that he attempted to cash and thus he did not have the intent to commit burglary and forgery. See NRS 205.060; NRS 205.090; NRS 205.110. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and Hannah did not testify. The district court denied this claim because Keeran failed to demonstrate that Hannah's testimony would have changed the result at trial. We agree. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying this claim. Second, Keeran argues that the district court erred by denying his claims that counsel was ineffective for stipulating to the admission of the forged check and for agreeing with the State on key issues in his opening statement. The district court denied these claims because it determined that they fell under the purview of counsel's tactical decisions, see Rhyne v. State, 118 Nev. 1, 8, 38 P.3d 163, 167-68 (2002), and any objection would have been futile, see Ennis v. State, 122 Nev. 694, 706, 137 P.3d 1095, 1103 (2006). We agree. Accordingly, we conclude that the

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 

### 2

,dgi4g4'Gibbons

Saitta

district court did not err by denying these claims. 1 Therefore, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge Kristina M. Wildeveld Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

1 Keeran also argues that the district court abused its discretion at sentencing because it relied on the "materially untrue" assumption that he was guilty of the crime. We decline to consider this claim because it is improperly raised for the first time on appeal. See Davis v. State, 107 Nev. 600, 606, 817 P.2d 1169, 1173 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 103 P.3d 25 (2004).

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 3
#### WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. RICCADONNA HOTEL CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

Action by Jesse L. Williams against the Riccadonna Hotel Company.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 31.4

Certification 

I, Ronald E. Stanley, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of US Airways, Inc.; and 

     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
[No. 36486-3-I.

Division One.

August 4, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Alejandro Miranda, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-1-07357-1, JoAnne Alumbaugh, J., entered April 10, 1995. *Affirmed in part*and *remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2041

To provide for homeland security grant coordination and simplification, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 2, 2005

Mr. CASTLE (for himself, Mr. BASS, and Mr. BACHUS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, 

and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To provide for homeland security grant coordination and 

simplification, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homeland Security 

5 Grant Enhancement Act of 2005’’.
SCWC

- 20

- 0000606

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

STATE OF HAWAI  I, Respondent/Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs.

MAXWELL BENJAMIN WERBLUN, Petitioner/Defendant

- Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP

- 20

- 0000606; CASE NO. 2DTC

- 20

- 694722)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant

- Appellant’s Application for Writ

of Certiorari, filed on September 16, 2022, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, October 31, 2022.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-20-0000606 31-OCT-2022 08:59 AM Dkt. 9 ODAC
Jose Misael GARFIAS-GARCIA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6964.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 12
 INTERNATIONAL LEASE FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED
STOCK DIVIDENDS FOR THE 
THREE
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2006 AND 2005
(Dollars in thousands)
 2006
    
    
    2005(Unaudited)Earnings:Net Income
    
    $
    125,480
    
    
    $
    128,922Add: Add:Provision for income taxes
    
    
    58,516
    
    
    
    60,096Fixed charges
    
    
    300,297
    
    
    
    254,913Less: Less:Capitalized interest
    
    
    (13,504
    )
    
    
    (14,507
    )Earnings as adjusted (A)
    
    $
    470,789
    
    
    $
    429,424Fixed and preferred stock dividends:Preferred dividend requirements
    
    $
    1,314
    
    
    $
    976Ratio of income before provision for income taxes to net income
    
    
    147
    %
    
    
    147
    %Preferred dividend factor on pretax basis
    
    
    1,932
    
    
    
    1,435Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    
    286,793
    
    
    
    240,406Capitalized interest
    
    
    13,504
    
    
    
    14,507Fixed charges as adjusted (B)
    
    
    300,297
    
    
    
    254,913Fixed charges and preferred stock dividends (C)
    
    $
    302,229
    
    
    $
    256,348Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
(A) divided by (B)
    
    
    1.57
    x
    
    
    1.68
    xRatio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred stock dividends
(A) divided by (C)
    
    
    1.56
    x
    
    
    1.68
    x
 - 28 -