alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Gary Stern, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Asta Funding, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d – 15(f)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.May 15, 2007/s/ Gary Stern
**EXHIBIT 23.2** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS**     We hereby consent to the references of our firm, in the context    in which they appear, and to our reserve estimates as of    August 31, 2006 and 2005, included in the Annual Report on    Form 10-KSB    of PYR Energy Corporation for the fiscal years ended    August 31, 2006 and 2005, as well as in the notes to the    financial statements included therein. We also hereby consent to    the incorporation by reference of the references to our firm, in    the context in which they appear, to our reserve estimates as of    August 31, 2006 and 2005, into PYR Energy    Corporation’s previously filed Registration Statements on    Form S-3(Nos. 333-42090,333-51764    and    333-117182),    and its previously filed Registration Statements on    Form S-8(nos. 333-17189    and    333-37568)    in accordance with the requirements of the Securities act of    1933, as amended. /s/  Ryder    Scott Company, L.P.    Ryder Scott Company, L.P.     Houston, Texas    November 21, 2006
# L_2009290EN.01007001.xml

| 6.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 290/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 290/70

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1057/2009

of 5 November 2009

granting no export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a permanent tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a permanent tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 3 November 2009. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 3 November 2009.

| (3) | The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 3 November 2009, no export refund shall be granted for the products and destinations referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 1 and in Article 2 of that Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 6 November 2009.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 5 November 2009.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 168, 28.6.2008, p. 20.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 325, 11.12.2007, p. 69.

3

---
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A1306. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY v. MONGE &

ASSOCIATES, P. C. et al.

This action began when AU Medical Center, Inc. sued Allstate Insurance

Company to recover certain medical expenses. Allstate answered and filed a thirdparty complaint against three third-party defendants who then moved to dismiss the

claims against them. In an order entered in December 2019, the trial court granted

the motion as to two third-party defendants, but denied the motion as to the other. 

Allstate then filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction.

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), appeals generally may be taken from “[a]ll final

judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below.” In

a case involving multiple parties or multiple claims, a decision adjudicating fewer

than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties is not a

final judgment. Johnson v. Hosp. Corp. of America, 192 Ga. App. 628, 629 (385

SE2d 731) (1989). For a party to obtain appellate review under such circumstances,

there must be either an express determination by the trial court that there is no just

reason for delay under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b) or compliance with the interlocutory

appeal requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See id. Where neither code section is

followed, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed. Id.

Here, the record contains no indication that the trial court directed the entry of

judgment under § 9-11-54 (b) or that the remaining claims in this action have been

disposed of. Consequently, because this action remains pending below, Allstate was

required to use the interlocutory appeal procedures – including obtaining a certificate

of immediate review from the trial court – to appeal the December 2019 order. See

February 28, 2020
OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Boyd v. State, 191 Ga. App. 435, 435 (383 SE2d 906) (1989). 

Allstate’sfailure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this premature direct appeal,

which is hereby DISMISSED. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d

213) (1996).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

02/28/2020
PAGE 1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

LARRY A. RENFROE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:15-cv-2219-JE

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued Findings and Recommendation in 

this case on August 31, 2017. ECF 23. Judge Jelderks recommended that the decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) be reversed and remanded for further 

proceedings. No party has filed objections.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the court 

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings 

or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
PAGE 2 – ORDER

If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 

474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended 

to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); 

United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the 

court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but 

not otherwise”). 

Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the Act “does not preclude 

further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” 

Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 

recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court review the magistrate’s findings 

and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”

No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory 

Committee and reviews Judge Jelderk’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the 

face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Jelderk’s 

Findings and Recommendation, ECF 23. The Commissioner’s decision that Plaintiff is not 

disabled is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 18th day of September, 2017.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY>  U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         235,725
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  774,153
<ALLOWANCES>                                   174,675
<INVENTORY>                                    138,185
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,289,612
<PP&E>                                         544,559
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,059,925
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          850,299
<BONDS>                                      1,230,376
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           196
<OTHER-SE>                                     919,991
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,059,925
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,614,062
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,512,142
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,969
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 87,951
<INCOME-TAX>                                    33,509
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             54,442
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (5,273)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    49,169
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Anthony Evans, Respondent.

"A Trial Judge who has rendered a guilty verdict after a nonjury trial has neither inherent power nor statutory authority to reconsider his factual determination. Although he may correct clerical or ministerial errors, he is without authority to reassess the facts and change a guilty verdict to not guilty” *(People v Carter,*63 NY2d 530, 533). A conviction may be set aside under CPL 330.30 (1) only if it was "based upon insufficient evidence or evidence which as a matter of law was inadequate to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” *(People v Carter, supra,*at p 537).

In the case at bar, the complainant identified the defendant at trial as one of the three men who robbed him. This testimony was not incredible as a matter of law, and if believed, would constitute sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court erred, therefore, in purporting to set aside the verdict, *746
      *sua sponte,*and the case must be remitted for sentencing *(see, People v Carter, supra).*Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Hooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11.1 -- STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (UNAUDITED)

STOCKWALK.COM GROUP, INC.
F/K/A  NM HOLDINGS, INC.
STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    FOR THE THREE MONTHS       FOR THE SIX MONTHS
                                                                       ENDED JUNE 30,             ENDED JUNE 30,
                                                                      1999         1998         1999         1998
                                                                      ----         ----         ----         ----
<S>                                                                <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Basic Loss Per Share:
     Weighted average shares outstanding                             1,238,197    1,238,197    1,195,345    1,364,005
     Net income (loss) applicable to common stockholders           $  (175,559) $  (120,477) $  (217,536) $   (71,324)
     Basic net loss per share applicable to common stockholders:
        Loss from continuing operations                                  (0.14)           -        (0.18)           -
        Loss from discontinued operations                                    -        (0.09)           -        (0.05)
                                                                   -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
        Net income (loss) per share                                $     (0.14) $     (0.09) $     (0.18) $     (0.05)


Diluted Loss Per Share:
     Weighted average shares outstanding                             1,238,197    1,364,005    1,195,345    1,364,005
     Dilutive potential common shares                                        -            -            -            -
                                                                   -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
        Total                                                        1,238,197    1,364,005    1,195,345    1,364,005
     Net income (loss) applicable to common stockholders           $  (175,559) $  (120,477) $  (217,536) $   (71,324)
     Diluted net loss per share applicable to
       common stockholders:
          Loss from continuing operations                                (0.14)           -        (0.18)           -
          Loss from discontinued operations                                  -        (0.09)           -        (0.05)
                                                                   -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
          Net income (loss) per share                              $     (0.14) $     (0.09) $     (0.18) $     (0.05)
</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 21


                                 SRS LABS, INC.
                                  SUBSIDIARIES

     On March 2, 1998, SRS Labs, Inc. acquired all of the outstanding capital
stock of Valence Technology, Inc., a British Virgin Islands company ("Valence").
Valence, in turn, beneficially owns all of the capital stock of the following
companies:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                       Name                     Jurisdiction of Incorporation
                       ----                     -----------------------------
<S>                                             <C>
      Valence Semiconductor Design Limited               Hong Kong

      ASP Microelectronics Limited ("ASP")               Hong Kong

      LEC Electronic Components Limited ("LEC")          Hong Kong

      VSD Electronics Limited                            Hong Kong
</TABLE>

     ASP, in turn, beneficially owns all of the outstanding shares of capital
stock of LEC Microelectronics Limited, a Hong Kong company, and LEC, in turn,
beneficially owns (a) all of the outstanding shares of capital stock of LEC
Electronics Limited, a Hong Kong company, and (b) all of the capital interests
in VSD Electronics (Hui Yang) Ltd., a wholly-owned foreign enterprise
established under the laws of the Peoples Republic of China.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                      5
       
<S>                                            <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                       SEP-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                        NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             3-MOS
<CASH>                                                  223,752
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                             185,706
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        506,275
<PP&E>                                                  696,066
<DEPRECIATION>                                          459,097
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        1,048,987
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 1,801,125
<BONDS>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                           1,393,889
<COMMON>                                             11,272,227
<OTHER-SE>                                          (13,602,559)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          1,048,987
<SALES>                                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          7,994
<CGS>                                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           681,014
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       16,480
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (681,775)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (681,775)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (681,775)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              (.25)
        




</TABLE>
PURGATOIRE RIVER AT TRINIDADLatitude: 37.171Longitude: -104.509Elevation: 5979.80

PURGATOIRE RIVER AT TRINIDAD

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Apishapa Site Page...



Apishapa

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Culebra #2 Site Page...



Culebra #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Whiskey Ck Site Page...



Whiskey Ck
The State of



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

November 23, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00531

- CR

Abelardo Gerardo GONZALEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 111th Jud icial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008CRR000665

- D1

Honorable David Peeples, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing is GRANTED.

We order appellant’s motion for rehearing due D ecember 12, 2015.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 23rd day of November, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court