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

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Nicholas J. Benson, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sunterra Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement 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 annual report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this annual 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 annual report; 

 

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

 

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;and 

 

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report; and 

 

c. Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’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(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors: 

 

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 significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

May 18-19, 2005

List of Attachments

No. Subject Person/Presenter

1 A Prospectus for GCD AMP Science Advisor Program

Support to GCMRC and GCD AMP for Completion of

Science Development Plans

Dave Garrett

2 Overview of the Next steps of the experimental planning

process ...” PPT

Ted Melis

3 Summary on Hydropower Economics associated with

Experimental Flows

Dave Harpman

4 Uncertainty Regarding Effects of MLFF and Other

Experimental Actions on Fisheries Resources in Grand

Canyon (PPT)

Lew Coggins

5 Factors Affecting Humpback Chub Population Dynamics

in Grand Canyon

Lew Coggins

6 Effects of 2003/2004 GCD Enhanced Fluctuating Flows

on the Early Life History Stages of Rainbow Trout in

Glen Canyon

Josh Korman

7 Lees Ferry Fishery – Status and Trends Bill Persons

8a

8b

A Review of the GCMRC Food Base Science Program

Aquatic Food base research and monitoring – what do

we know, and what don’t we know? PPT

Ted Melis

Ted Kennedy

9 Gradients in Near Shore Temperature Aug-0ct 2004

PPT

Josh Korman

10 Update on 2003-2004 Mechanical Removal of NonNative Fishes in the Colorado River PPTLew Coggins

11 Geomorphology Workshop Update PPT Helen Fairley

12 Humpback Chub Update PPT Glen Knowles

13a

13b

13c

Provisional Core Monitoring Plan and Future Planning

Process Memo

Provisional Core Monitoring Plan Final Draft

Core Monitoring Plan Update PPT

Helen Fairley

14 Step-down Process for Evaluating the Core Monitoring

Components of the Downstream Water Quality Project

Scott Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Case No.: 3:16−cr−00051−AA

Plaintiff(s),

v.

AMMON BUNDY, et al.

Defendant(s).

/

Criminal Case Assignment Order

1. Presiding Judge: The above referenced case has been filed in the Portland Division of the U.S.

District Court for the District of Oregon and assigned to:

2. Courtroom Deputy Clerk: Questions about the status or scheduling of this case should be

directed to:

Rebecca Henshaw

Telephone: 541−431−4102

Email: rebecca_henshaw@ord.uscourts.gov

3. Case Administrator/Docket Clerk: Questions about filings or docket entries in this case

should be directed to:

Telephone: 503−326−8050

4. Place of Filing: Any paper filings must be submitted to the Clerk of Court, Mark O. Hatfield

U.S. Courthouse, 1000 S.W. Third Ave., Portland, OR, 97204. (See LR 3−1, LR 5−5.)

5. District Court Website: Information about local rules of practice, CM/ECF electronic filing

requirements, responsibility to redact personal identifiers from filings, and other related information

can be found on the Court's website at ord.uscourts.gov.

DATED: February 3, 2016 MARY L. MORAN

Clerk of Court

by: /s/ P. Scheneman

P. Scheneman, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 80 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 1
# L_2009230EN.01000601.xml

| 2.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 230/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 230/6

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 72/2009 of 19 January 2009 on modifications to the Common Agricultural Policy by amending Regulations (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 320/2006, (EC) No 1405/2006, (EC) No 1234/2007, (EC) No 3/2008 and (EC) No 479/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 1883/78, (EEC) No 1254/89, (EEC) No 2247/89, (EEC) No 2055/93, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 2596/97, (EC) No 1182/2005 and (EC) No 315/2007

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 30 of 31 January 2009
  )

On page 10, Article 4, point 35, last sentence (in the text of the new paragraph 7 of Article 182 of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007):

for:

‘However, in no case shall the total amount of Community support under the measures referred to in Article 68(4) of that Regulation and state aid exceed the ceiling referred to in the Article 68(4).’,

read:

‘However, in no case shall the total amount of Community support under the measures referred to in Article 69(4) of that Regulation and State aid exceed the ceiling referred to in Article 69(4) and (5).’.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5



<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              153580
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1134033
<PP&E>                                             2816119
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (308241)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    15673908
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              7563276
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                          18324963
<OTHER-SE>                                       (10214331)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      15673908
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   2424694
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    1966
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (2291850)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (2291850)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      67442
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (224408)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0 <F1>
<FN>
<F1>

Fully diluted EPS not computed on loss.

</FN>




</TABLE>
DISMISS and Opinion F iled September 7, 2023 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00640-CV
PIPELINE HEALTH, LLC AND PIP ELINE EAST DALLAS, LLC D/B/A CITY HOSPITAL AT WHITE ROCK A/K/A WHITE ROCK MEDICAL CENTER, Appellants V. SADKIKA SEEGAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF J.E.S., A MINOR, DORTHEA FRANCES SEEGAN, AND KERBY KELLER, IN DEPENDENT EXECUT OR OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES SEEGAN, DECEASED, Appellees
On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-01842

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipne ss, Reichek, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Reichek Before the Court is appellants’ unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. We
grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

220640F.P05 /Amanda L. Reichek / AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

PIPELINE HEALTH, LLC AND PIPELINE EAST DALLAS, LLC D/B/A CITY HOSPITAL AT WHITE ROCK, A/K/A WHITE ROCK MEDICAL CENTER, Appellants

No. 05-22-00640-CV V.

SADKIKA SEEGAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF J.E.S., A MINOR, DORTHEA FRANCES SEEGAN, AND KERBY KELLER, INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES SEEGAN, DECEASED, Appellees On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-01842. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek. Justices Partida-Kipness and Breedlove participating.

In accordance with this Court’s op inion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that the parties bear their own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered September 7, 2023
#### In the Matter of Eugene Bonacci, Respondent, v Nathan Quinones, as Chancellor of the New York City School District, et al., Appellants.

The petitioner, while provisionally holding the title of *660school custodian engineer with the New York City Board of Education, took a competitive examination for that position in April 1983. An eligible list of 50 names was established as of December 21, 1983, upon which he ranked ninth. On May 7, 1984, the petitioner was summoned to a hiring pool and appointed to a permanent position as a custodian at Public School 28. At that time the petitioner was among those appointed to the 30 vacancies then existing for that title. Thus, the petitioner’s one-year probationary period pursuant to Education Law § 2509, 4 NYCRR 4.5 and New York City Department of Personnel Rules and Regulations 5.2.1 (a) began on May 7, 1984, and not upon the declaration of the eligible list, as the list was neither immediately exhausted nor inadequate *(see,*Civil Service Law § 65 [4]; *Matter of Becker v New York State Civ. Serv. Commn.,*61 NY2d 252; *see also, Matter of Haynes v County of Chautauqua,*55 NY2d 814). The petitioner’s probationary period was also properly extended by the respondents pursuant to 4 NYCRR 4.5 (f) and New York City Department of Personnel Rules and Regulations 5.2.2 (b) by the number of work days he was absent from his job *(see, e.g., Matter of Boyle v Koch,*114 AD2d 78; *Tomlinson v Ward,*110 AD2d 537, *affd*66 NY2d 771). Consequently, the petitioner’s probationary period was extended to June 10, 1985, and the termination of his employment without notice of charges, a statement of reasons or a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 was proper *(see, e.g, Matter of York v McGuire,*63 NY2d 760). Inasmuch as the petition does not allege that the petitioner’s dismissal was in bad faith, it is appropriate to dismiss the proceeding *(see, eg., Matter of Lentlie v Egan,*94 AD2d 839, *affd*61 NY2d 874).

Further, the petitioner has not demonstrated an entitlement to a name-clearing hearing as there was no evidence of any public disclosure of any allegations affecting his good name or reputation *(see, e.g., Matter of Lentlie v Egan,*61 NY2d 874; *Matter of Petix v Connelie,*47 NY2d 457). Moreover, the petitioner failed to adduce facts sufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity with respect to his discharge *(see, e.g., Matter of Graff v Town of Darien,*106 Misc 2d 104; Fisch, NY Evidence § 1134 [2d ed]). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Niehoff and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 21, 2011

y1114 

# Order

November 21, 2011

143599

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143599 COA: 297428 Oakland CC: 2009-228689-FC RAPHAEL DARNELL MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 30, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-12624

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:13-cr-00212-JA-GJK-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

TODD LESLIE KROEBER, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(January 23, 2015)

Before HULL, JULIE CARNES and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-12624 Date Filed: 01/23/2015 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Andrew J. Chmelir, appointed counsel for Todd Kroeber in this criminal 

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and has 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 

18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that 

counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because 

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Kroeber’s conviction and 

sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-12624 Date Filed: 01/23/2015 Page: 2 of 2
#### PENN BANK, FOR USE, v. FARMERS D. N. BANK.

APPEAL BY PLATNTIEE FROM THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS NO. 1 OE ALLEGHENY COUNTY.

Argued November 8, 1889 Affirmed at Bar.

A bank obtaining commercial paper as indorsee, whether for collection, or as owner, before an assignment by the maker for the benefit of creditors, may set off the amount thereof in a suit brought by the assignee to recover the maker’s balance on deposit.

Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Clark, Williams, Mc-Collum and Mitchell, JJ.

No. 253 October Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 302 September Term 1884, C. P. No. 1.

On September 23, 1889, the action by the Penn Bank, for *210use of Henry Warner, assignee, against the Farmers Deposit National Bank, reported as Farmers D. N. Bank v. Penn Bank, 123 Pa. 283, came on for a second trial in the court below, before Collier, J. There was no change in the parties or pleadings, and by agreement the same testimony taken on the first trial was submitted to the jury, the same objections made and exceptions sealed. *>*

The plaintiff requested the court to charge:

1. If the jury believe that the check of $88,000, exhibit No. 2, in this case, was taken by the defendant from the Germania Savings Bank, and the amount thereof credited in the account of the latter bank, on condition that in case of non-payment it should be returned to the Germania Savings Bank and the credit canceled, and that the said check was not paid, and the defendant notified the Germania Savings Bank of such nonpayment, and tendered the check back to the latter bank, and charged back the amount of said check to said Germania Savings Bank’s account, prior to the voluntary assignment of the Penn Bank to Henry Warner, as shown by the book of the defendant in evidence, then said check cannot be set off in this action, and the verdict should be for the plaintiff for the amount of his claim, with interest.

Answer: Refused.1

The defendant requested the court to charge:

1. That under all the evidence in the case, the Farmers Deposit National Bank, the defendant, has the right to set off the check, exhibit 2, in this action.

Answer: Affirmed.3

The jury found in favor of the defendant and certified a balance in its favor, as against the Penn Bank, for $64,781.71. Judgment having been entered on the verdict, the plaintiff took this writ, assigning for error:

1, 2. The answers to the points presented.1 3

*Mr. 8. A. McOlung*(with him *Mr. A. M. Brown*and *Mr. IT. A.*Miller), for the appellant.

Counsel cited: Adams v. Taylor, 2 Ala. 675; McDade v. Mead, 18 Ala. 214; Strouse v. Insurance Co., 5 Ohio (N. S.) 59; McGowan v. Budlong, 79 Pa. 470.

*211
      *Mr. D. T. Watson, Mr. G. W. Guthrie, Mr. P. 0. Knox, Mr. James B. Peed, Mr. John M. Kennedy*and *Mr. James 0. Doty,*for the appellee, were not heard.

Counsel cited, in their brief filed: Farmers D. N. Bank v. Penn Bank, 123 Pa. 283; Brown v. Clark, 14 Pa. 469; Ward v. Tyler, 52 Pa. 393.

Pee Curiam :

On the argument at Bar,

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>          The schedule contains  summary financial information
extracted from the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements and
is  qualified  in  its  entirety  by  reference  to  such financial statements.

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Sep-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  Oct-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                            6,429,397
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                    25,323,858
<ALLOWANCES>                       (310,352)
<INVENTORY>                         513,418
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 38,548,483
<PP&E>                           80,441,408
<DEPRECIATION>                  (24,597,609)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   95,129,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            20,813,037
<BONDS>                          10,846,445
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                             62,868
<OTHER-SE>                       55,742,240
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     95,129,653
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 53,860,382
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    53,762,791
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  318,239
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (220,648)
<INCOME-TAX>                        (79,433)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (141,215)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                       (141,215)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.02)



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Thomas P. Sullivan III, Respondent, v Melissa Moore, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 641]—

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, by permission, from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Klein, J.), dated November 7, 2011, which temporarily granted, without a hearing, the father’s application for supervised visitation with the parties’ children pending the final outcome of the proceedings. By decision and order on motion dated December 22, 2011, this Court stayed enforcement of the order pending hearing and determination of the appeal.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings consistent herewith, to be conducted forthwith.

“An order affecting visitation, like an order modifying custody, must be addressed solely to the infant’s best interests” *(Kresnicka v Kresnicka,*48 AD2d 929, 929 [1975]; *see Matter of Leichter-Kessler v Kessler,*71 AD3d 1148 [2010]; *Hizme v Hizme,*212 AD2d 580 [1995]). “Generally, an evidentiary hearing is necessary regarding a modification of visitation” *(Matter of Jeffers v Hicks,*67 AD3d 800, 801 [2009]; *see Matter of Perez v Sepulveda,*51 AD3d 673 [2008]). However, “[a] party seeking a change in visitation or custody is not automatically entitled to a hearing, but must make an evidentiary showing sufficient to warrant a hearing” *(Matter of Leichter-Kessler v Kessler,*71 AD3d at 1149; *see Matter of Grant v Hunter,*64 AD3d 779 [2009]; *Matter of Grassi v Grassi,*28 AD3d 482 [2006]). “[A] hearing will not be necessary where the court possesses adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and provident determination as to the child’s best interest” *(Matter of Horn v Zullo,*6 AD3d 536, 536 [2004]; *see Matter of Jeffers v Hicks,*67 AD3d 800 [2009]).

Here, the father petitioned to enforce visitation with the parties’ children as set forth in a judgment of divorce, alleging that he was in compliance with the conditions for visitation as set forth in that judgment. However, this allegation was disputed by the mother, and the father’s papers were insufficient to conclusively establish his compliance. Since the Family Court did not, on its own, possess adequate relevant information to enable it to make a determination as to the best interests of the child in the absence of a hearing, it was error to temporarily grant the father’s application for supervised visitation without first holding a hearing.

*1224Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for a hearing with respect to the father’s petition. Balkin, J.E, Leventhal, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 21, 2016

No. 04-16-00527-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Y.L.C., a Child

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10028

Honorable Hugo Martinez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK 

OF JURISDICTION. No costs of appeal shall be assessed against the Office of the Attorney 

General.

It is so ORDERED on September 21, 2016.

_____________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of September, 2016.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk