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

 

**Certification of President**

**Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act**

 

I, Wo Hing Li, President ofChina Precision Steel, Inc., certify that:

 

1)        I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of China Precision Steel, Inc. (the “registrant”);

 

2)        Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3)        Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4)        The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:

 

a)        Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared; and

 

b)        Evaluated the effectiveness of this registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)         Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

 

5)        The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)        All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)        Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: November 19,  2007 | By:    | /s/ Wo  Hing Li |
|-------------------------------|--------|-----------------|
|                          |   | Wo Hing Li      |
|                          |   | President       |

 

----
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 02-18

IN RE: RECALL OF RETIRED JUDGE

O R D E R

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7257(b)(1), eligible retired Judges of the Court may be recalled 

by the Chief Judge when further service is needed by the Court. Retired Judge William A. 

Moorman, having complied with 38 U.S.C. § 7257, is designated a recall-eligible retired Judge. 

The Chief Judge of the Court has determined that, if recalled, Judge Moorman would provide 

substantial service necessary to meet the needs of the Court. 

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that, effective January 16, 2018, through December 31, 2018, recall-eligible 

retired Judge Moorman is recalled from retired status in accordance with 38 U.S.C. § 7257(b)(1). 

Judge Moorman shall have and exercise all the judicial powers and duties of the office of a Judge 

in active service and shall otherwise perform substantial service for the Court as requested by the 

Chief Judge. It is further

ORDERED that Judge Moorman shall serve in recalled status in calendar year 2018 to 

review and decide appeals, motions, and other filings with the Court and to perform other 

substantial service at the request of the Chief Judge and he shall so serve throughout the calendar 

year for up to 90 days or its equivalent. With his consent, Judge Moorman's service may be 

extended beyond 90 days. 

DATED: January 16, 2018 BY THE COURT:

ROBERT N. DAVIS

Chief Judge
#### Raman K. SINGH, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gary HASS, a/k/a Gary Van Hass, a/k/a Gary Hollywood, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 10-1744.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 28, 2011.

Decided: May 5, 2011.

James E. Bowman, II, Ferrisbowman PLLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Stacie C. Bordick, Hirschler Fleischer, P.C., Fredericksburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gary Hass appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his motion to dismiss the Appellee’s complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.2010). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and the district court subsequently adopted that recommendation. However, the timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); *see also Wells v. Shriners Hosp.,*109 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1997) (forfeiture rule enforced where report fails to inform party of consequences of failure to object if party is represented by counsel). Hass has waived appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are *231adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### In the Matter of John C. Schoonmaker, Appellant, v Richard A. Romeo et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Onondaga, et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition granted *(see, Matter of Pecoraro v Mahoney,*65 NY2d 1026). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gilbert, J.— Election Law.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Davis, JJ. (Order entered Aug. 21, 1987.)
Exhibit 32.02   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Friendly Energy Exploration (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald Trapp, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.      /s/ Donald Trapp By: Donald Trapp Chief Financial Officer  Dated: April 5, 2011  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.8


                               CHARLES A. BEASLEY
                                 5600 NATHAN WAY
                              BLOOMINGTON, IN 47408


                                                November 20, 2003

Thomas P. Tanis, Jr.
President
Syndicated Food Service International, Inc.
P.O. Box 2185
Front Royal, VA 22630

Dear Tom:

        The purpose of this letter is to confirm the agreement reached between
Iain Brown, Sr. and myself this past Saturday regarding the Extension and
Exchange Agreement ("Agreement") entered into by and between my wife, Marge, and
myself and Syndicated Food Service International, Inc. and affiliates (the
"Company").

        Based upon and subject to our receipt of $289,000, which Iain has agreed
to provide to the Company, which will in turn make the payment to us, we agreed
to extend the Put Period as defined in the Agreement from November 30, 2003
until March 31, 2004. The $289,000 will be applied against the $233,210
principal payment due on January 1, 2003 pursuant to the $1,266,420 Promissory
Note, plus accrued interest thereon.

        As you and I discussed, this extension will in no way change any of the
other terms and conditions of the Agreement. Please confirm the foregoing on
behalf of the Company and affiliates by countersigning in the space provided
below and return a countersigned copy of this letter to me. Upon receipt of you
countersignature, the Agreement will be deemed amended as provided above.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                        <C>
                                                            Respectfully,


                                                            Charles A. Beasley

CAB/pag

Cc:      Iain Brown, Sr.

CONFIRMED this ____ day of November, 2003.



                                                            ----------------------------
                                                            Thomas P. Tanis, Jr. for Syndicated Food Service
                                                            International, Inc., Beasley Food Service,
                                                            Inc. and Syndicated Bloomington I LLC
</TABLE>
(85 South. 411)

#### BUTLER v. HOWELL.

(4 Div. 840.)

'(Supreme Court of Alabama.

Feb. 12, 1920.

On Rehearing, June 30, 1920.)

Exceptions, bill of &wkey;>55(l) — Appellant on refusal to sign bill may move to establish in Supreme Court.

Whore presiding judge refused to sign the bill as presented and claimed to be correct by appellant, the proper course is for appellant tto move to establish his bill of exceptions in the Supreme Court.

Sayre and Brown, JJ., dissenting.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; A. B. Foster, Judge.

Action between J. P. Butler and- W. W. I-Iowell. From judgment rendered, the former appeals.

Affirmed.

E. ©. Baldwin, of Andalusia, and M. S. Carmichael, of Montgomery, for appellant.

A. Whaley, of Andalusia,- for appellee.

BROWN, J.

The appellant by making motion in this court to establish his bill of ■exceptions pursued the proper course. Sovereign Camp W. O. W. v. Ward, 200 Ala. 19, 75 South. 331; Hughes v. Albertville Merc. Co., 173 Ala. 559, 56 South. 120.

The evidence offered in support of the motion has been considered by the court in ■banc, and the opinion prevails that preponderance of the evidence shows that the bill ■of exceptions as presented by the movant to .the presiding judge was not correct, and the motion is therefore denied.

The bill of exceptions as signed by the presiding judge, and as incorporated in this record, discloses no reversible error, and therefore it is not necessary to decide the question as to whether the appellant has the right to rely on the bill as signed after having his motion to establish denied, as the cause must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE, SOMERVILLE, GARDNER, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

On Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

ANDERSON, C. J., Mc-CLELLAN, SOMERVILLE, GARDNER, and THOMAS, .JJ., adhere to the conclusion that the appellant did not meet the burden of proof resting upon him on the motion to establish the bill of exceptions, and that the application should be overruled.

SAYRE and BROWN, JJ., are of the opinion that the evidence submitted on the motion to establish the bill of exceptions shows that the bill as presented to the trial judge gives a correct history of what occurred on the trial, and that the bill should be established.

Application for rehearing overruled.

ANDERSON, O. J., and McOLELDAN, SOMERVILLE, GARDNER, and THOMA^, JJ., concur.

SAYRE and BROWN, JJ., dissent.
```

                                                                                                     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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Tropical Sportswear Int'l Corporation (the "Company") for
the  quarter  ended  June 28, 2003  as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  I,  N. Larry  McPherson,  Chief Financial Officer  of  the Company,  certify,  to the best of my
knowledge,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,  as adopted pursuant  to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
                  Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The information  contained  in  the  Report fairly presents,  in all material respects, the
                  financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                                     /s/ N. Larry McPherson
                                                     N. Larry McPherson
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
August 4, 2003

* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Tropical Sportswear
Int'l Corporation and will be retained by Tropical Sportswear Int'l Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```
#### Executors of Ackerman *ads.*C. A. Van Houten.

If a defendant neglects to plead Ills discharge, under the insolvent act, in an action for a debt contracted previous to his discharge, and suffers the regular time for pleading the same to elapse under a mistaken idea of the law, the court will not permit him afterwards to withdraw a *rehcta*given by him at the Circuit in order to plead his discharge.

*Wm.*Halsted, on behalf of *W.*Pennington, attorney for Van Houten, moved for leave to withdraw the *relicta*which had been signed at the last Circuit in Essex, for the purpose of pleading the discharge of Van Houten, under the insolvent act, previous to the commencement of the suit; and read an affidavit of the defendant, stating, that subsequent to the contracting of the debt, for which the action was brought, and previous to the commencement of the suit, he took the benefit of the insolvent law of this state, and that he did not inform his attorney of that fact, (until after he had filed a plea of the general issue, and the cause had been noticed for trial and called at the circuit,) under a belief that it would be sufficient for him to produce his discharge before the Circuit Court in order to obtain the benefit of it.

*H. Vanarsdale, Jun.,*opposed the application upon the ground that it was too late in point of time; and cited 2 *N. T. T. Pep.*102; 1 *John. Ca.*133; 18 *John.*337.

*396Ch. Justice.

*We*think this application too late. The discharge was obtained before' the commencement of the suit, and might have been pleaded, and probably would have been if not concealed, it would almost seem studiously from the attorney by the defendant who availed himself of another plea, which had no support and was relinquished at the Circuit. Allowing to the affidavit its utmost force, the only reason given for the delay, is an ignorance of the law.

Application overruled.
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. MG00-6-008]

Dominion Transmission, Inc. filed a supplement to its January 23, 2001 revised standards of conduct that responded to the Commission's December 15, 2000 Order. 93 FERC ¶ 61,284 (2000).

Dominion Transmission, Inc. states that it sent copies of its filing to all parties on the service list.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or protest in this proceeding with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 or 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). All such motions to intervene or protest should be filed on or before May 3, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of these filings are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at ­                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-10039  Filed 4-23-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-07-M
Exhibit 31.2  PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, John W. Peters, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, 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 small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: March 27, 2007 /s/ John W. Peters John W. Peters Principal Financial Officer
#### Hamner v. Thomas, *et al.*

Appeal from Chancery Court of Tuscaloosa.

Heard before the Hon. Thomas.Cobbs.

J. H. McGuire, A. B. McEachin, Wm. G. Cochran, and J. W. Carson, for appellant.

Foster & Oliver, for appellees.

*664Opinion by

Haralson, J.

*663The bill in this case was filed by the appellees against the appellant to have a certain deed executed by Berry Thomas and wife to the defendant, Hamner, declared a mortgage to secure an indebtedness of said Berry Thomas to the defendant, and prayed that the complainants be allowed to redeem said lands under such mortgage and for an accounting to ascertain as to whether or not the mortgage debt had been paid.

Berry Thomas, who was the mortgagor, died prior to the filing of the bill; and the bill is filed by his wife, Maggie Thomas and his children who survive him.

*664On the final submission of the cause upon the pleadings and proof, the chancellor rendered a decree granting the relief prayed for and ordering a reference. Upon the coming in of the register report, after the holding of said reference, the chancellor confirmed such report ■ and rendered a decree granting to the complainants the appropriate relief sought by their bill. From this de-, cree the defendant appeals, and assigns the rendition thereof as error.

The decree is affirmed.