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



EXHIBIT 23.1

Independent Auditors Consent

The Board of Trustees
Archstone-Smith Trust:

We consent to incorporation by reference in registration statements No.
333-44639-01(Form S-3), 333-63734-01 (Form S-4), 333-72550 (Form S-8),
333-72506 (Form S-8), 333-60817-99 (Form S-8), 333-60815-99 (Form S-8),
333-31033-99 (Form S-8), 333-31031-99 (Form S-8), 333-43723-99 (Form S-8),
333-72348-01 (Form S-4), 333-64540-01 (Form S-4), 333-89160
(Form S-3), 333-86744 (Form S-3), of Archstone-Smith Trust of
our reports dated January 24, 2003, except as to Note 18, which is as of
February 12, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Archstone-Smith Trust (successor registrant to Archstone Communities Trust) as
of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of earnings,
shareholders equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2002, and the related schedule, which reports appear
in the December 31, 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Archstone-Smith Trust.

KPMG LLP

Denver, Colorado
February 28, 2003
# 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 Annual Report of United Financial Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Paula J. Delaney, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(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/   Paula J. Delaney

---

March 29, 2005

---
#### Lorenzo Dale WILLIAMS, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard K. NEWMAN; M. Byrum, Officer of Hopewell Police Department; S. Pak, Officer at Hopewell Police Department; W. Blankenship, Officer-*268Hopewell Police Department; Kenneth Nye, Judge; Anthony Slyvester; J. Armstead, Riverside Regional Jail; W. Allen Sharrett, Judge-Hopewell Circuit Court; Kay H. Rackly, Hopewell Circuit Court; Jacqueline Barreto, Crane-Snead & Associates, Inc.; Elbert Mumphery, Hopewell Circuit Court; Sam Campbell, Hopewell Circuit Court, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-6136.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2013.

Decided: May 29, 2013.

Lorenzo Dale Williams, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Dale Williams, Sr., seeks to appeal from the district court’s order dismissing his claims against several of the Defendants, directing the correctional institution to provide Williams’ financial information, and directing Williams to provide additional information. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Williams seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**Certification of Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302**

**of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Debra Fine, certifythat:

 

1.               Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of SMALL WORLD KIDS, INC.;

 

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)              Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)             Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: March 31, 2006 
|   |
|--------|
|   |
|   | /S/ Debra Fine |   |
|   | Name: Debra Fine |
|   | Title: Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 27501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12399]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Intent To File Application for a New License

May 11, 2001.
    Take notice that the following notice of intent has been filed with 
the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of filing: Notice of Intent to File an Application for New 
License.
    b. Project No: 2150.
    c. Date filed: April 16, 2001.
    d. Submitted By: Puget Sound Energy.
    e. Name of Project: Baker River Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Baker River, a tributary of the Skagit River, 
in Whatcom and Skagit Counties, near Concrete, WA. The project is on 
Federal Lands in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 15 of the Federal Power Act, 18 CFR 
16.6.
    h. Pursuant to Section 16.19 of the Commission's regulations, the 
license is required to make available the information described in 
Section 16.7 of the regulations. Such information is available from the 
licensee at Puget Sound Energy, Inc., 411-108 Ave NE, OBC-14W, 
Bellevue, WA 98004. Contact Lloyd Pernela, 425-462-3507.
    i. FERC Contact: Steve Hocking, (202) 219-2656, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#deadaabba8bbf0b6b1bdb5b7b0b99eb8bbacbdf0b8bbbaf0abad"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="daa9aebfacbff4b2b5b9b1b3b4bd9abcbfa8b9f4bcbfbef4afa9">[email protected]</span></a>.
    j. Expiration Date of Current License: April 30, 2006.
    k. Project Description: The project includes two dams, two 
reservoirs, and two powerhouses. The present installed capacity and 
propose relicensed capacity is 162.1 megawatts (MW).
    l. the licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an 
application for a new license for Project No. 1971. Pursuant to 18 CFR 
16.9(b)(1) each application for a new license and any competing license 
applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior 
to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license 
for this project must be filed by April 30, 2004.
    A copy of the notice of intent is available for inspection and 
reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 
First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 
208-1371. The notice may be viewed on http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call (202) 208-2222 for assistance). A copy is also available 
for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-12399 Filed 5-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Chinadu Ogbolu, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Laurie Peterson, J.), rendered March 16, 2018, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Laurie Peterson, J.), rendered March 16, 2018, affirmed.</p><p>Defendant argues that his guilty plea to the charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent. Significantly, however, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument rather than a remand for further proceedings, and he expressly requests this Court to affirm his conviction if it does not grant a dismissal. Since we are not prepared to dismiss the accusatory instrument that initially contained a class B felony drug sale charge, which was dismissed as a result of the negotiated plea, we affirm on this basis (<i>see People v. Conceicao</i>, 26 NY3d 375, 385 n 1 [2015]; <a href="../2016/2016_03598.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Teron</i>, 139 AD3d 450</a> [2016]). In any event, our review of the record indicates that defendant's guilty plea was entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily with the aid of counsel, and after the court sufficiently advised defendant of the constitutional rights he would be giving up by pleading guilty (<a href="../2015/2015_08615.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Conceicao</i>, 26 NY3d 375</a>; <a href="../2015/2015_08617.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Sougou</i>, 26 NY3d 1052</a> [2015]). Defendant's present challenges to the plea are both unpreserved and without merit.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: June 14, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
##### 



Exhibit 1.11
  [Logo of Québec Registrar]
 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
 Companies Act, Part IA
 (R.S.Q., c. C-38)
   JANUARY 12, 2007 Companies Act
 [Signed]Filed in the register on January 15, 2007[Seal of Québec Registrar]
    
    under registration number 1149501992
    
    Acting Enterprise RegistrarR530|12M99Q11JA
 1




---



##### 



(QUEBEC LOGO)
    
    Articles of Amendment
     Companies Act(R.S.Q., c.C-38, Part IA)
 Québec enterprise numberNEQ
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    4
    
    
    
    
    9
    
    
    
    
    5
    
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    9
    
    
    
    
    9
    
    
    
    
    2
 1. Name 
  -
    
    Enter the current name, if you are keeping it, and write N.A. in section 5.
 QUEBECOR MEDIA INC. / QUEBECOR MÉDIA INC.Mark and X in this box if you are apply for a designating number (numbered company) rather than a name o
 2. The articles of the company are amended as follows:
  
 3. Effective date
 Date following that of the filing date:Year
    
    
    Month
    
    
    Day2
    
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    7
    
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    2
 4. Amendment of articles under sections 123.140 and following of the Companies Act
  Companies Act
 
    
    where the correction or insertion does not affect the rights of the shareholders or creditors (sec. 123.140);........ o
 
    
    where the correction or insertion may affect the rights of the shareholders or creditors  append copy of judgment
(sec.o123.141).
 5. Name prior to the amendment
  
 Do not write in this spaceQuébec (QUEBEC LOGO)
    
    
    
    
    /s/ Érik PéladeauSignature of Authorized DirectorFiled on
Jan. 12, 2005
    
    
    
    
    If you need more space, attach an appendix in two copies, identify the relevant section, and number the pages, if any.THE ENTERPRISE REGISTRAR
 RETURN BOTH COPIES OF THIS FORM TOGETHER WITH YOUR PAYMENT.
DO NOT SEND BY FAX.
 <
 2




---



##### 



ANNEX 1
 TO THE ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT OF
 QUEBECOR MÉDIA INC. / QUEBECOR MEDIA INC.
      8. Conversion
    3




---



##### 



ANNEX 2
 TO THE ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT OF
 QUEBECOR MÉDIA INC. / QUEBECOR MEDIA INC.
 CUMULATIVE FIRST PREFERRED SHARES, SERIES G
  1 Number of Series G Shares Available For Issue
  2 Dividends
   th




---



##### 



3 Liquidation
  4 Voting Rights
  5 Retraction Rights
  6 Redemption Rights
 pro rata




---



##### 



7 Redemption Price
  *********
EXHIBIT
31.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I,
Hongwen Li, certify that:
 
 1.           I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Songzai International Holding
Group, Inc.;
 
 2.           Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4.           The
registrant’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 registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 (b) Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report 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 registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
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 the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 (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 registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
 
 (b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date:  March
      30, 2009
                By:
                /S/
      Hongwen LiHongwen
      LiChief
      Executive Officer
Case 1:07-cv-05563-AKH     Document 6      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-05563-AKH     Document 6      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *933Roger Hicks, Appellant.

Case held, decision reserved, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: The court erred in summarily denying defendant’s motion to suppress tangible evidence seized from him during a border search. Because no hearing was conducted, the record is insufficient to allow us to determine whether there was "some” suspicion justifying the "pocket search” conducted by Customs officials *(People v Luna,*73 NY2d 173, 178-180). Therefore, we hold the case and remit for a hearing to determine defendant’s Fourth Amendment claim. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kubiniec, J.— criminal possession of stolen property, second degree.) Present —Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.
Case 7:07-cv-05895-SCR-GAY Document 5 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 7:07-cv-05895-SCR-GAY Document 5 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01528-AKH Document 7-5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01528-AKH Document 7-5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 2
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00031-CR

Gregory Anthony Rodriguez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR-07-065, HONORABLE JACK H. ROBISON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury found appellant Gregory Anthony Rodriguez guilty of thirteen counts of

aggravated sexual assault, indecency with a child, and sexual assault committed against the two

daughters of his ex-girlfriend. Appellant’s appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that the

appeal is frivolous and without merit. 

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743-44

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders, 386 U.S. at

743-44; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978);Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d

684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

Appellant’s attorney sent appellant a copy of the brief and advised him that he had the right to
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of 1

his case by the court of criminal appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for

discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See generally Tex. R. App.

P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for

discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date

this Court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The

petition must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the court of criminal

appeals along with the rest of the filings in the cause. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition

for discretionary review should comply with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of appellate procedure.

See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4, 68.5. 

2

examine the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Jackson v. State,

485 S.W.2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No pro se brief has been filed.

We have considered the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. We have reviewed the evidence presented to the jury and the

procedures that were observed and find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.1

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton

Affirmed

Filed: January 13, 2010

Do Not Publish
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 14 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 14 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 14 Filed 08/01/2008 Page 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2043

DERRICK MICHAEL ALLEN, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BUSCH GARDENS / SEA WORLD ORGANIZATION; ZENA LOFTON, Lead 

Candidate Experience Cons.; TAMMY PREZ, Human Resource Dept.; BUSCH 

GARDEN POLICE (SECURITY),

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:21-cv-00544-DJN)

Submitted: March 24, 2022 Decided: March 28, 2022

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Allen v. Busch Gardens/Sea World Org., No. 3:21-cv-00544-DJN (E.D. Va. Sept. 

16, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED