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





SARBANES-OXLEY
SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER








I,
Russell W. Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer of PuraMed Bioscience Inc., certify
that:





1.           I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of PuraMed Bioscience 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 small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.           The
small business issuer’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 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 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 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
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 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:  May
15, 2009                                                              /s/ Russell W.
Mitchell


Russell W. Mitchell


Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATIONS I, David Rogers, certify that:  1.           I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Q of International Industrial Enterprises;  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 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 and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (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.  November 11, 2008     /s/ David Rogers David Rogers Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilber MARROQUIN-TORRES, a.k.a. Israel Marroquin-Torres, a.k.a. Roberto Chang, a.k.a. Wilbert Marroquin-Torres, a.k.a. Jorge Oritz-Barrera, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-14726

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 4, 2010.

Craig L. Crawford, Peter Warren Kenny, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Peggy Morris Ronca, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*883Before CARNES, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Craig L. Crawford, appointed counsel for Wilber Marroquin-Torres in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Marroquin-Torres’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert Glen HARRISON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-4115-cr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 2, 2010.

Alison S. Arms, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Michael L. Desautels, of counsel), Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of Vermont, Burlington, VT, for Appellant.

Wendy L. Fuller, Assistant United States Attorney (Gregory L. Waples, As*622sistant United States Attorney, of counsel), for Tristram J. Coffin, United States Attorney for the District of Vermont, Burlington, VT, for Appellee.

Present: JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant Robert Glen Harrison was convicted in Vermont on October 26, 1998 of sexual assault of a minor under the age of sixteen. *See*Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 3252. As a result, the defendant was obligated to maintain his sex offender registration as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SOR-NA” or “the Act”), 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). On January 5, 2009, defendant moved to dismiss the indictment charging him with violating SORNA, which the district court below denied in a Memorandum Decision and Order entered April 10, 2009, 2009 WL 975381. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty, and a judgment of conviction was entered on September 23, 2009. On appeal, defendant reiterates his challenges to the constitutionality of SORNA, arguing that the Act is an invalid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and that his prosecution was invalid because he lacked adequate notice of the federal registration requirement in violation of his due process rights. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.1

The defendant’s appeal is wholly precluded in light of our recent decisions in *United States v. Guzman,*591 F.3d 83 (2d Cir.2010) and *United States v. Hester,*589 F.3d 86 (2d Cir.2009). In those cases, we considered and rejected a virtually identical set of challenges to the constitutionality of SORNA based on the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause.

Specifically, in *Guzman*we stated that “[w]e have no difficulty concluding that § 2250(a) is a proper congressional exercise of the commerce power.” *Guzman,*591 F.3d at 90. In *Hester,*we held that as long as the defendant has notice of a corresponding state obligation to register as a sex offender, “a due process challenge to a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) based upon a lack of notice is without merit.” *Hester,*589 F.3d at 92. Here, there is no dispute that the defendant received and affirmatively acknowledged three valid notices.

Because clear circuit precedents fully preclude the defendant’s arguments, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

1

. This case was heard in tandem with *United States v. Barrett,*No. 09-5350-cr, because both cases present identical issues on appeal.
|   |  (1) |   |  The      Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,      2008 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange      Act of 1934, as amended; and |   |
|--------|-----------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

|   | (2) |   | The      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and      results of operations of the Company. |   |
|--------|-----|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

|                           |                                                                                                  |                         |
|--------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|
|                           |  BISCAYNE ACQUISITION GROUP,      INC.(Registrant)                                               |
|                           |                                                                                                  |                         |
|  Dated:      May 15, 2008 |  By:                                                                                             |  /s/      Luz M. Weigel |
|                           | Luz      M. Weigel                                                                                    |
|                           | President,      Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer)(Principal      Accounting Officer) |
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document




 
 

EXHIBIT 4.2    
    


        Form of Specimen Certificate of Class B Common Stock 




  









  


        This certificate also evidences and entitles the holder hereof to certain rights as set forth in a Rights Agreement between Tronox Incorporated and UMB
Bank, N.A., as Rights Agent, dated as of                        , 2005, as it may be amended from time to time (the
"Agreement"), the terms of which are hereby incorporated herein by reference and a
copy of which is on file at the principal executive offices of Tronox Incorporated. Under certain circumstances, as set forth in the Agreement, such Class B Rights (as defined in the Agreement)
will be evidenced by separate certificates and will no longer 










be
evidenced by this certificate. Tronox Incorporated will mail to the holder of this certificate a copy of the Agreement without charge after receipt of a written request therefor. As set forth in
the Agreement, Class B Rights beneficially owned by any Person (as defined in the Agreement) who becomes an Acquiring Person (as defined in the Agreement) become null and void. 


        The
shares of Class B Common Stock represented by this certificate may not be transferred to any person in connection with a transfer that does not meet the qualifications set
forth in Paragraph (6), SECTIONS 6(B), (C) and (D) of ARTICLE FOURTH of the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation and no person who receives such shares in connection with a
transfer which does not meet the qualifications prescribed by Paragraph (6), SECTION 6(D) of said ARTICLE FOURTH is entitled to own or to be registered as the record holder of such
shares of Class B Common Stock, but the record holder of this certificate may at such time and in the manner set forth in said ARTICLE FOURTH of the Certificate of Incorporation convert
such shares of Class B Common Stock into the same number of shares of Class A Common Stock for purposes of effecting the sale or other disposition of such shares of Class A Common
Stock to any person. Each holder of this certificate, by accepting the same, accepts and agrees to all of the foregoing. 











QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 4.2
December 15, 2022

VIA Portal

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Attention: Chris Kirkpatrick, Secretary

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

Re: CFTC Regulation 40.6(d) Notification: Nodal Exchange Weekly Notification of Rule 

Amendments

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) Regulation 

40.6(d), Nodal Exchange submits this weekly notification of non-substantive revisions made, during 

the week of December 5, 2022, to the Nodal Exchange Rulebook Appendix A (Contract 

Specifications). For Nodal power contracts in ERCOT, the Final Settlement Price field has been 

amended to provide an updated link to the ERCOT price files. These revisions have no effect on the 

economic characteristics of these contracts in accordance with CFTC Regulation 40.6(d)(i).

If you have any question or need additional information regarding this submission, please contact 

me at 703-962-9853 or markotic@nodalexchange.com. 

Sincerely,

/s/ Max Markotic

Senior Director Compliance
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

CHESTER C. PELT, JR., DOC #260839, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2845 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed December 19, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge. Chester C. Pelt, Jr., pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
KELLY, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and LaROSE, C.J., JJ., Concur.
Cause No. 12-15-00047-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

TYLER, TEXAS 

=============================================================== 

MARK J. HEALEY 

APPELLANT 

V.

EDWIN N. HEALEY 

APPELLEE 

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

On Appeal from Cause No. 2014C-0638

From the 3rd District Court, Henderson County, Texas 

Honorable Mark Calhoon, Judge Presiding 

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

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING APPELLANT'S BRIEF 

=============================================================== 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

I.

 Now comes Appellant is Mark J. Healey and moves the Court for an extension of 

time to November 30, 2015 to file his Reply Brief and in support thereof, would show the 

Court: 

II. 

 The Appellant’s brief without extension is due November 10, 2015.

III. 

 A Reply Brief is needed in this cause to clearly present the issues to the Court. 

ACCEPTED

12-15-00047-CV

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

11/2/2015 1:40:43 PM

Pam Estes

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 11/2/2015 1:40:43 PM PAM ESTES Clerk
IV.

Appellant’s attorney’s work schedule makes it extremely difficult to properly 

prepare a Reply Brief within the 20 day period of the filing of Appellee’s Brief and 

settlement discussions are in progress.

V.

No previous extensions of time have been requested or granted for Appellant’s 

Reply Brief.

VI.

Appellant’s attorney has conferred with Appellee’s attorney regarding this motion 

and Appellee’s attorney does not oppose this motion.

WHEREFORE, Appellant moves the Court for an extension of time until 

November 30, 2015 in which to file Appellant’s Reply Brief.

Respectfully submitted,

STARK & GROOM, LLP

110 E. Corsicana St.

Athens, TX 75751

903-675-5691 Telephone

903-675-6454 Facsimile

stevestark@starkandgroom.com Email

/s/ Steve Stark

Steve Stark

State Bar No. 19066000

Attorney for Appellant
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Appellant’s Attorney hereby certifies that he conferred with Koy Killen by 

telephone on October 29, 2015 and counsel does not oppose the requested extension.

_/s/_Steve Stark

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on November 2, 2015 a true and correct copy of Appellant’s Motion 

To Extend Time of Filing Reply to Appellee’s Brief was served on all parties or counsel 

of record in accordance with rules.

Koy R. Killen Via Fax: 817-447-0052

104 South Main Street

Burleson, Texas 76028

Paul C. Healey

3309 Heather Hill

Garland, Texas 75044

_/s/_Steve Stark
#### Ronnie T. SHELTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Social Security Administration; Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Disability Services; Disability Determination Services; Sharon L. Gottovi, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Rehabilitative Services, Disability Determination Services; Barry Lawlor, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Rehabilitative Services, Disability Determination Services, Defendants-Appellees, *305and Peggy Carter, Social Security, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review; Winnie J. Whiting, Social Security, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, Defendants.

No. 13-1504.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 27, 2013.

Decided: Oct. 4, 2013.

Ronnie T. Shelton, Appellant Pro Se. Kartic Padmanabhan, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia; Erin Laura Barrett, Pamela Brown Beckner, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie T. Shelton appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Shelton’s civil complaint in part, and granting the Commissioner’s motion to remand. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Shelton v. Astrue,*No. 5:12-cv-00009-MFU-JGW (W.D.Va. filed Feb. 15, 2013; entered Feb. 19, 2013). 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.*
# C_2011074EN.01000101.xml

| 8.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/1

---

OPINION OF THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 3 March 2011

on a Council recommendation on the appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank

(CON/2011/16)

2011/C 74/01

Introduction and legal basis

Introduction and legal basis

On 18 February 2011 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the President of the European Council for an opinion on Council Recommendation of 15 February 2011 (1) on the appointment of a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank.

1

The competence of the ECB’s Governing Council to deliver an opinion is based on Article 283(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

General observations

General observations

| 1. | The Council’s Recommendation, which was submitted to the European Council, and on which the European Parliament and the ECB’s Governing Council are being consulted, recommends appointing Peter Praet as a member of the ECB’s Executive Board for a term of office of eight years with effect from 1 June 2011. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Council’s Recommendation, which was submitted to the European Council, and on which the European Parliament and the ECB’s Governing Council are being consulted, recommends appointing Peter Praet as a member of the ECB’s Executive Board for a term of office of eight years with effect from 1 June 2011.

| 2. | The ECB’s Governing Council is of the opinion that the proposed candidate is a person of recognised standing and professional experience in monetary or banking matters as required by Article 283(2) of the Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The ECB’s Governing Council is of the opinion that the proposed candidate is a person of recognised standing and professional experience in monetary or banking matters as required by Article 283(2) of the Treaty.

| 3. | The ECB’s Governing Council has no objection to the Council’s Recommendation to appoint Peter Praet as a member of the ECB’s Executive Board. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The ECB’s Governing Council has no objection to the Council’s Recommendation to appoint Peter Praet as a member of the ECB’s Executive Board.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 3 March 2011.

The President of the ECB

Jean-Claude TRICHET

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 22.2.2011, p. 1.

1

---