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

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

 

I, David J. Meyer, Chief Executive Officer of TitanMachinery Inc., certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Qof Titan Machinery Inc.;

 

2              Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain 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 period coveredby 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 officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed suchdisclosure 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 consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness 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) Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors:

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date: January 11, 2008

 

 
|   | /s/ David J. Meyer              |
|--------|---------------------------------|
|   | David J. Meyer                  |
|   | Chairman of the Board and Chief |
|   | Executive Officer               |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto CARRILLO-BASTIDA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-10008.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 2010.*

Filed April 21, 2010.

Molly E. McMurray, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Leslie Ann Bowman, Esquire, Law Office of Leslie A. Bowman Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Roberto Carrillo-Bastida, pro se.

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Roberto Carrillo-Bastida appeals from the 87-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We dismiss in light of Carrillo-Bastida’s valid written waiver of his right to appeal.

*610Carrillo-Bastida contends that the waiver of his right to appeal was not knowing and voluntary. But the record reflects that it was. *See United States v. Jeronimo,*398 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir.2005) (“We follow the rule that a waiver of the right to appeal is knowing and voluntary where the plea agreement as a whole was knowingly and voluntarily made.”); *see also United States v. Hernandez,*251 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir.2001) (“In the absence of a formally enacted rule, a district court judge may regulate practice in any manner consistent with federal law, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and local rules of the district.”) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); *United States v. Garrett,*179 F.3d 1143, 1144-45 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (denial of motion for continuance reviewed for abuse of discretion).

Further, our review of the record indicates that, at the sentencing hearing, the district court did not mischaracterize its authority to depart from the Guidelines.

We decline to consider arguments raised by Carrillo-Bastida for the first time in his reply brief. *See United States v. Anderson,*472 F.3d 662, 668 (9th Cir.2006).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# C_2019383EN.01002801.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/28

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Lublin-Wschód w Lublinie z siedzibą w Świdniku — Poland) — Lexitor sp. z o.o. v Spółdzielcza Kasa Oszczędnościowo — Kredytowa im. Franciszka Stefczyka, Santander Consumer Bank S.A. and mBank S.A.

(Case C-383/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Credit agreements for consumers - Directive 2008/48/EC - Article 16(1) - Early repayment - Right of the consumer to a reduction in the total cost of the credit, consisting of the interest and the costs for the remaining duration of the contract)

(2019/C 383/30)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Lublin-Wschód w Lublinie z siedzibą w Świdniku

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lexitor sp. z o.o.

Defendants: Spółdzielcza Kasa Oszczędnościowo — Kredytowa im. Franciszka Stefczyka, Santander Consumer Bank S.A. and mBank S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the right of the consumer to a reduction in the total cost of the credit in the event of early repayment of the credit includes all the costs imposed on the consumer.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.

---
Exhibit
32





OSG
AMERICA L.P.





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002





Each of
the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of
OSG America LLC (the “Company”), the general partner of OSG America L.P. (the
“Partnership”), hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge and belief, that
the Form 10-Q of the Partnership for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009
(the “Periodic Report”) accompanying this certification fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Periodic
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.  This certification is
provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not intended to be used for any other
purpose.





Date:  August 10,
    2009
                  /s/
      Myles R. ItkinMyles
      R. ItkinChief
      Executive OfficerDate:  August 10, 2009
                  /s/
      Henry P. FlinterHenry
      P. FlinterChief
      Financial
Officer
#### Oxford Health Plans, Inc., Respondent, v Howard L. Scheiner, M.D., Appellant.

Submitted January 4, 2010;

decided February 23, 2010

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying reargument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sean Smith, Appellant.

Submitted May 10, 2010;

decided June 3, 2010

Motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 1012 (b) (2) permitting movant City of New York to file a brief and participate in oral argument of the appeal granted in each respect.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1006 

Reaffirming the commitment of the House of Representatives to safeguard 

and uphold the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2010 

Mr. ROONEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Reaffirming the commitment of the House of Representatives 

to safeguard and uphold the 10th Amendment to the 

Constitution of the United States. 

Whereas the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the 

United States, ratified on December 15, 1791, states, 

‘‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the 

Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’’; 

Whereas the 10th Amendment expressly limits the powers of 

the Federal Government to those delegated by the Constitution and reaffirms and protects the freedom of the 

States to exercise those that are not; 

Whereas the 10th Amendment reflects the opposition of the 

Founding Fathers to a Federal Government with expansive powers; their intention for the powers of the States 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1006 IH 

to act as a check on those of the Federal Government; 

and their concern that the Federal Government would attempt to usurp powers intended to remain with the 

States; 

Whereas James Madison, in The Federalist No. 45, wrote, 

‘‘The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to 

the Federal Government are few and defined. Those 

which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.’’; 

Whereas the Supreme Court, in United States v. Sprague, 

282 U.S. 716 (1931), noted, ‘‘The Tenth Amendment 

was intended to confirm the understanding of the people 

at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers 

not granted to the United States were reserved to the 

States or to the people.’’; 

Whereas the Supreme Court, in Fry v. United States, 421 

U.S. 542 (1975), also noted, ‘‘The Amendment expressly 

declares the constitutional policy that Congress may not 

exercise power in a fashion that impairs the States’ integrity or their ability to function effectively in a federal 

system.’’; and 

Whereas it is the responsibility of Congress to safeguard the 

10th Amendment and to recognize that it is as vital and 

valuable today as on the date of its ratification: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes the value and importance of the 10th Amendment 

3 to the Constitution of the United States and reaffirms its 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1006 IH 

1 commitment to safeguard and uphold the 10th Amend2 ment. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Members of the Board 

MTR Corporation Limited:

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement onForm F-3 (No. 333-13904) of MTR Corporation Limited and MTR Corporation (C.I.) Limited of our report dated March 1, 2005, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of the MTR Corporation Limited and its subsidiaries (the “Group”) as ofDecember 31, 2003 and 2004, and the related consolidated profit and loss accounts, consolidated cash flow statements and consolidated statement of changes in equity for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, which reportappears in the annual report on Form 20-F of the Group for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ KPMG 

Hong Kong 

June 17,2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1998; THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1998; AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              NOV-2-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,651
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   88,338
<ALLOWANCES>                                       786
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               131,621
<PP&E>                                          43,624
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,304
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 197,145
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,919
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           159
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,324
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   197,145
<SALES>                                        597,614
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               599,709
<CGS>                                          472,783
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  575,689
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (457)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,094
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,563
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,914
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,166
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,748
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (9,818)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,930
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00812-CR

Gary ALVAREZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR4637B

Honorable Kevin M. O’Connell, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED February 8, 2017.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 on Form 10-K of Applix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Milton A. Alpern, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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/ Milton A. Alpern
                                       -----------------------------------------
Dated: March 29, 2004                  Milton A. Alpern
                                       Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 29948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13944]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6990-5]


Whalehead Beach Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Settlement.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency is proposing 
to enter into a settlement with the Atlantic Research Corporation for 
past response costs pursuant to Section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 
U.S.C. 9622(h)(1) concerning the Whalehead Beach Superfund Site located 
in Corolla, Currituck County, North Carolina. EPA will consider public 
comments on the proposed settlement for thirty (30) days. EPA may 
withdraw from or modify the proposed settlement should such comments 
disclose facts or considerations which indicate the proposed settlement 
is inappropriate, improper or inadequate. Copies of the proposed 
settlement are available from: Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U.S. EPA, Region 
4 (WMD-PSB), 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562-
8887.
    Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Batchelor within 30 
calendar days of the date of this publication.

    Dated: May 2, 2001.
James T. Miller,
Acting Chief, CERCLA Program Services Branch, Waste Management 
Division.
[FR Doc. 01-13944 Filed 6-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Feliciano, Appellant.

Submitted May 24, 2010;

decided June 3, 2010

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Joseph Lee Matalon, Esq., care of Matalon Shweky Elman PLLC, 450 Seventh Ave., 33rd Floor, New York, NY 10123 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
# CE2012182EN.01004701.xml

| 22.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 182/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 182/47

---

Thursday 3 February 2011Agreements on trade in bananas ***

P7_TA(2011)0035

European Parliament legislative resolution of 3 February 2011 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas between the European Union and Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and Venezuela and of an Agreement on Trade in Bananas between the European Union and the United States of America (07782/2010 – C7-0148/2010 – 2010/0057(NLE))

2012/C 182 E/11

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (07782/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (07782/2010),

| — | having regard to the draft Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas (07968/2010) and the draft Agreement on trade in bananas between the European Union and the United States of America (07970/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas (07968/2010) and the draft Agreement on trade in bananas between the European Union and the United States of America (07970/2010),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207(4), first subparagraph and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0148/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207(4), first subparagraph and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0148/2010),

| — | having regard to Rules 81 and 90(8) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 81 and 90(8) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A7-0002/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A7-0002/2011),

| 1. | Consents to conclusion of the agreements; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consents to conclusion of the agreements;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and Venezuela and the United States of America. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and Venezuela and the United States of America.

---
[929 NE2d 403, 903 NYS2d 339]

#### Neal Flomenbaum, Appellant, v New York University, Respondent.

Decided June 3, 2010

*902APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Foley & Lardner LLP,*New York City *(Barry G. Felder*of counsel), for appellant.

*Nancy Kilson,*New York City, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether defendant New York University breached the parties’ underlying contract *(Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 560 [1980]). Plaintiffs remaining contentions lack merit.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.