alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31(a) - RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION (CEO)

I, Jackson Y. Dott, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Monarch Services,
    Inc.;

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 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, this annual report does not contain any untrue
information included in this annual report, fairly presents 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 officer 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 registrant and have:

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

    b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
        and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date
        of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

    c)  Presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effect-
        iveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
        evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

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

    a)  All significant deficiencies in the design of operation of internal
        controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
        record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
        identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses
        in internal controls; and

    b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
        other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
        internal controls.

6.  The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

/s/    JACKSON Y. DOTT

Jackson Y. Dott
Chief Executive Officer
Date:  July 29, 2004
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44732

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MARIA GUADALUPE MACIEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 550

Filed: August 18, 2017

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Madison County. Hon. Gregory W. Moeller, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twelve years, with a minimum period of 

confinement of two years, for aggravated driving while under the influence of 

alcohol, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Maria Guadalupe Maciel pleaded guilty to felony aggravated driving while under the 

influence of alcohol, Idaho Code § 18-8004(1)(a). The district court imposed a unified sentence 

of twelve years, with two years determinate. Maciel filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion 

which the district court denied.1

 Maciel appeals, contending that her sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

 1 Maciel does not appeal the denial of her Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion. 
2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Maciel’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
EXHIBIT 15.01

                     INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT
                     --------------------------------------

To the Board of Directors
August Project I Corporation
Miami, Florida

We have reviewed the accompanying  balance sheet of August Project I Corporation
as of March 31, 2000 and the related  statements  of  operations,  stockholders'
equity  (deficit)  and cash flows for the periods ended March 31, 2000 and 1999.
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We  conducted  our  reviews in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants.  A  review  of  interim
financial  information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial  data, and making  inquiries of persons  responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing  standards,  which will be performed
for the full year with the  objective of  expressing  an opinion  regarding  the
financial  statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly,  we do not express such an
opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the accompanying condensed financial statements referred to above for
them to be in conformity with accounting  principles  generally  accepted in the
United States.

/s/ HJ & Associates, LLC

HJ & Associates, LLC
Salt Lake City, Utah
May 15, 2000
(8 Misc. Rep. 420.)

#### PRENTISS v. BOWDEN.

(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.

May 7, 1894.)

•Creditors’ Bill—Issuance oe Execution.

A levy of execution after the debtor’s death, though on the same day, is void, and does not constitute a foundation for a creditors’ bill, as the rule that the courts do not notice fractions of a day does not apply in such case.

Appeal from special term.

Action by George Lewis Prentiss, as general guardian, against Ellen Bowden. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and ■defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before SEDGWICK, C. J., and FREEDMAN and McADAM, JJ.

Benjamin Patterson and George Bell, for appellant.

William R. Wilder, for respondent.

SEDGWICK, C. J.

The action was in the nature of a creditors’ bill, designed to reach real property that had been conveyed by the debtor to the defendant. The plaintiff, in order to succeed in the action, had to prove that an execution had been issued against the debtor’s property, and had been returned unsatisfied. Adsit v. Butler, 87 N. Y. 585. An execution had been issued and returned, but it was void. It had been levied on the day of the -debtor’s death, and about five hours after his death. Section 1380, Code Civ. Proc., forbids that being done. Wallace v. Swinton, 64 N. Y. 188. The counsel for respondent invokes the principle by which, in certain cases, courts do not take notice of the fraction of a day. 'They do, however, take notice of them when there are conflicting rights, for the determination of which it is necessary for them to ■do so. Broom, Leg. Max. 134. First and last, the fact that the judgment debtor had died would be decisive that an execution could not issue. For this reason the judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant, to abide the event.
Texas Mineral Resources Corp. 10-K 







 


 


Exhibit 10.16


 











 


VARIATION OF OPTION AGREEMENT


 


We refer to the Option Agreement between
Texas Mineral Resources Corp. (a Delaware corporation) (Texas Mineral Resources) and Morzev Pty Ltd (ACN 604 624 535) (Morzev)
(together, the Parties) dated 28 August 2018 and varied on 20 September 2018 (Agreement). Capitalised terms used
in this variation agreement have the same meanings as under the Agreement unless the context requires otherwise. The purpose of
this variation agreement is to record the Parties’ agreement, in accordance with clause 11.03 of the Agreement, to give effect
to the variation set out below.


 


The Parties hereby agree to further vary
the Agreement by deleting the words:


 


		(a)	“to enter into a Definitive Agreement” in Recital B of the Agreement;



 


		(b)	“in the form of that annexed to the Definitive Agreement” in Section 3.03(d) of the Agreement;
and



 


		(c)	“in the form of that annexed to the Definitive Agreement” in Section 3.03(d) of the Agreement.



 


Further, the Parties hereby acknowledge
and agree that the Option has been exercised by Morzev in accordance with Article 3 of the Agreement.


 


Other than as agreed in accordance with
the terms of this variation agreement, the terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. Any inconsistency
between the Agreement and this variation agreement will be interpreted in such a manner as to give effect to this variation agreement.
This variation agreement is governed by the laws in force from time to time in the State of Delaware.


 


By execution of this variation agreement,
the Parties agree to the variation of the Agreement on the terms and conditions set out above. This variation agreement may be
executed in any number of counterparts and all counterparts taken together constitute one variation agreement.


 


DATED: October 9, 2018


 


	EXECUTED by MORZEV PTY LTD	)







	ACN 604 624 535	)







	in accordance with section 127 of the	)







	Corporations Act 2001 (Cth):	)




 


	/s/ Mordechai Gutnick	 	 
	
        Signature of sole director/company secretary

         
	 	 
	MORDECHAI GUTNICK	 	 
	Signature of sole director/company secretary	 	 


 


    1


     


    
 

DATED: October 9, 2018


 


	EXECUTED BY	)







	TEXAS MINERAL RESOURCES CORP	)







	in accordance with its constituent	)







	documents and place of incorporation:	)




 


	/s/ Daniel E. Gorski	 	 
	
        Signature

         
	 	 
	Daniel E. Gorski, CEO	 	 
	Name and title	 	 




 






    2
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------



                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
                        and Principal Financial Officer
                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



         In  connection  with this  annual  report on Form  10-K/A of  Excalibur
         Industries I, Joseph P. Hubert,  Chief Executive  Officer and Principal
         Financial Officer of Excalibur Industries, certify, 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 this report fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         Excalibur Systems.


Date: July 20, 2005                /s/ Joseph P. Hubert
                                     -------------------------------------
                                     Joseph P. Hubert
                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                     (Principal Financial Officer)
Motion Granted; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 1, 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00736

- CV

MIAMI BEVERLY, LLC , Appellant

V.
CHAMPION ENERGY SERV ICES, LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris Co unty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 62024



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a summary judgment made final by an order of non

suit signed March 26 , 2013. According to appellant’s notice of appeal filed August 16, 2013, the trial court signed a reformed judgment on May 22, 2013, and appellant filed a motion for new trial on June 21, 2013.

On September 16 , 2013, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal
because the parties have settled all controversies between them

. See Tex. R. App.
P. 42.1 . The motion is granted.2

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, McCally, and Busby.
Exhibit 4.(b)(5)



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 of Viryanet Ltd. (the
Company) of our independent auditors report dated February 17, 2004, except for note 1f, as to which the date is March 16, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Viryanet Ltd. appearing in the Companys
Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2003.



|                 |  |                                 
|---------------- |  | --------------------------------
|Tel-Aviv, Israel |  | KOST, FORER GABBAY and KASIERER 
|August 24, 2005  |  | A Member of Ernst & Young Global
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Barry T. Finnerty, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Stolarik, J.), rendered January 4, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion, which was to suppress identification evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*636Our examination of the suppression hearing minutes and the photographic array confirms the conclusion reached by the County Court that neither the array nor the procedure used in the identification process was suggestive. We find that the array was not so arranged that the witness’ attention was drawn to only one subject *(see, People v Dubois,*140 AD2d 619, 622). In any event, based on the complainant’s ability to view the defendant face-to-face, under good lighting, for approximately five minutes during the course of the commission of the crime, it is our opinion that there was a sufficient independent basis for the complainant’s in-court identification of the defendant as the perpetrator. Thus, the issue of identification hinged upon the reliability of the complainant’s observations and the credibility of his identification testimony, both matters properly left for jury resolution *(see, People v Dukes,*97 AD2d 445). We find no basis to disturb the jury’s verdict on identification grounds.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his *pro se*supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit. Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD     Document 18-3      Filed 03/25/2008     Page 1 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD     Document 18-3      Filed 03/25/2008     Page 2 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD     Document 18-3      Filed 03/25/2008     Page 3 of 4

Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD     Document 18-3      Filed 03/25/2008     Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  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 GameTech International, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard M. Kelley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my best
knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|/s/RICHARD M. KELLEYRichard M. Kelley
Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

September 16,
2002

---

QuickLinks
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 701 

To prohibit the use of funds to transfer enemy combatants detained by 

the United States at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to any 

facility in Oklahoma, or to construct any facility for such enemy combatants in Oklahoma. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2009 

Ms. FALLIN (for herself, Mr. COLE, Mr. LUCAS, Mr. BOREN, and Mr. SULLIVAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of funds to transfer enemy combatants 

detained by the United States at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to any facility in Oklahoma, or to 

construct any facility for such enemy combatants in 

Oklahoma. 

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


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 701 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO TRANSFER 

2 INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO 

3 BAY, CUBA, TO ANY FACILITY IN OKLAHOMA, 

4 OR TO CONSTRUCT ANY FACILITY FOR SUCH 

5 INDIVIDUALS IN OKLAHOMA. 

6 None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 

7 available to any Federal department or agency may be 

8 used— 

9 (1) to transfer any enemy combatant detained 

10 by the United States at Naval Station, Guantanamo 

11 Bay, Cuba, to any facility in Oklahoma; or 

12 (2) to build, modify, or enhance any facility in 

13 Oklahoma for the purpose of housing any such 

14 enemy combatant. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
# 2023 Wildland Fire Safety Training Annual Refresher

**Posted: April 13, 2023**

            -   Find similar articles:
            - Training
            - Wildfire and WUI

            - Share on:
            - 
            - 
            - 

The 2023 Wildland Fire Safety Training Annual Refresher (WFSTAR) Core Components are available from the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG).

To maintain currency, all designated NWCG positions with fire line duties, as well as any position assigned to the fire line for non-suppression tasks, must complete WFSTAR training annually.

WFSTAR training modules are focused on operations and decision-making issues related to fire line safety, training line-going personnel to recognize and mitigate risk, maintain safe and effective practices, and reduce accidents and near misses.

## Modules added in 2023

            - 2022 Fire Year in Review
            - Vehicle safety operations (3 new lessons)
            - Incident reviews and lessons learned (2 new case studies)
            - Digital maps

Because training modules are developed and posted throughout the year, make it a habit to check NWCG’s WFSTAR website for additional resources.

The WFSTAR modules are listed in the NWCG training catalog under course code RT-130 and must be delivered as instructor-led training. While some modules must be delivered in person, others can be delivered in a virtual instructor-led format.

Local agency units are responsible for scheduling WFSTAR training. Check the Wildland Fire Learning Portal (WFLP) and contact the local training officer in your area.

This article is based on content in theApril 13, 2023 InfoGram.

 Subscribe to the InfoGram
#### CLEGHORN v. CLEGHORN et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

June 20, 1894.)

Action—Misjoinder oe Causes.

Where a complaint states causes of action for partition, for ejectment, and for an accounting as to rents of real estate, and none of the defendants are Interested in all the causes of action, there is misjoinder.

Appeal from special term, Niagara county.

Action by Edith M. Cleghorn against Jennie Cleghorn and others. From an interlocutory judgment sustaining demurrers to the complaint, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before DWIGHT, P. J., and LEWIS, HAIGHT, and BRADLEY, JJ.

Henry M. Davis, for appellant.

E. C. Hart, for respondents O’Connor.

S. Wallace Dempsey, for respondents Keough.

Charles Hickey, for respondent Spaulding.

LEWIS, J.

The decision of the court sustaining the demurrers was handed to the clerk, and filed by him, during the sitting of the court. The plaintiff, laboring under the erroneous impression that the decision had not been made and filed within 20 days after the final adjournment of the court, made a motion, for that reason, for a new trial, under section 1010 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Another alleged error upon which the plaintiff relied was that the court’s decision failed to state the grounds upon which the demurrers were sustained. It was, notwithstanding such omission, in proper form. Eaton v. Wells, 82 N. Y. 576; Wood v. Lary, 124 N. Y. 83, 26 N. E. 338. The plaintiff’s motions were properly denied.

She also appeals from an interlocutory judgment which was entered upon the decision of the demurrers. The complaint is quite a remarkable one. It attempts to state a cause of action for partition, as against some of the defendants; as to others, it is an action in ejectment; as to others, for an accounting as to the rents, issues, and profits of real estate. It seeks to determine the rights in real estate, as between the plaintiff and some of the defendants, and again it seeks to remove alleged clouds upon the title to the land. It is quite clear that there is an improper joinder of .causes of action. None of the defendants appear to be interested in all of the causes of action stated in the complaint. The demurring defendants are each severally interested in but one of the several causes of action. We are inclined to the opinion that the complaint fails to state a cause of action against any of the defendants. The judgment and orders appealed from should be affirmed, with costs of the appeal from the judgment, but with leave to the plaintiff to amend the complaint within 20 days upon payment of the costs of the demurrer and of this appeal. All concur.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

AUGUST 1998 SESSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9711-CC-00437

)

Appellee ) HARDIN COUNTY

)

v. ) HON. C. CREED McGINLEY,

) JUDGE

JAMES R. MOSS, )

) PROBATION

Defendant/Appellant )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

Richard W. DeBerry John Knox Walkup

Assistant District Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter

24th Judicial District

117 North Forrest Avenue Marvin E. Clements, Jr.

Camden, TN 38320 Assistant Attorney General 

Criminal Justice Division

Cordell Hull Building, 2nd Floor

425 Fifth Avenue North

Nashville, TN 37243

OPINION FILED 

AFFIRMED

JOHN K. BYERS

SENIOR JUDGE
-2-

O P I N I O N

The defendant, James R. Moss, appeals as of right from the judgment of the

Hardin County Circuit Court which denied him probation on two convictions of

obtaining a controlled substance by fraud for which he was sentenced to serve three

years on each offense concurrently.

The defendant says the trial court abused its discretion in denying probation. 

We conclude that the evidence strongly supports the trial court’s action and that no

error of law requiring a reversal is apparent from the record. Accordingly, the

judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20, Tenn.Ct.Crim.App.

 

John K. Byers, Senior Judge

CONCUR:

 

David H. Welles, Judge

 

Jerry L. Smith, Judge