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





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



I, Peter Riehl, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report of Stellar Pharmaceuticals 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. I am 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 my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the 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: September 21, 2007 | By: | /s/ Peter Riehl        
|                         |     | Peter Riehl            
|                         |     | Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 99.5**

**Section 906 Certification**

Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

                         Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Ballard Power Systems Inc., acorporation organized under the laws of Canada (the “Company”), for theperiod ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersignedofficers of the Company certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.          the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78 m(a) or 78 o(d)); and

2.          theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Dated: March 26, 2007 | /s/ John Sheridan                     |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                  |                                       |
|                  | John Sheridan                         |
|                  | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                  |                                  |
|                  |                                  |
| Dated: March 26, 2007 | /s/ Dave Smith                        |
|                  |                                       |
|                  | Dave Smith                            |
|                  | Chief Financial Officer               |
Exhibit 31.2

I, R. Jerry Giles, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Community Financial
Corporation (the "Registrant");

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 consolidated financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the consolidated 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;

c) disclosed in this report any changes in the Registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter 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, 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.

Date: November 12, 2004

/s/ R. Jerry Giles 
R. Jerry Giles 
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ROBERT LEE FLOUNOY III

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D 2 02 2

- 2042

[ November 30, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County; Caroline C. Shepherd, Judge; L.T. Case No.

502019CF005409AMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Mara C. Herbert, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas,

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J., F ORST and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Memo
 Date:
    
    April 24, 2009To:
    
    Eric CeyrolleFrom:
    
    Dick MorinRE:
    
    Separation from Cognex
  
    
    You will receive your gross monthly salary (28,800 Euros) through July 15, 2009 (the
Termination Date) and on the usual payment dates.
    
    You will receive payment of any outstanding vacation days accrued but not taken up to
the Termination Date (subject to social contributions).
    
    You will receive an additional payment of 299,200 Euros on the Termination Date in
settlement of your rights under French law.
    
    You will be entitled to receive up to a total maximum amount of 15,360 Euros to cover
(upon presentation of related receipts) reasonable and customary costs incurred by you to
prepare your tax documents for 2009.
    
    Cognex will pay to your current French mutuelle health insurance the greater of (a)
the employer and employee contributions due until the end of 2009 and (b) the amount
required of us by French law.
    
    You will be entitled to the reimbursement of customary professional expenses incurred
by you prior to the Termination Date in accordance with our policies and procedures.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7543
LEONARD A. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARKER EVATT; TONY ELLIS; LARRY C. BATSON; PRISON INDUSTRIES/PRIVATE SECTOR DIVISION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JOHN DOE, President of ESCOD Corporation of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; GENE BAKER, Defendants - Appellees, versus DAVID JOHN LEWIS; WILLIAM C. BRIDGEMAN, Movants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-317-6-OAK) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Leonard A. Smith, A ppellant Pro Se. Thomas C.R. Legare, Jr., NEXSEN, PRUET, JACOBS & POLLARD, C olumbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals that portion of the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint relating to Appellees' taking of funds from him without court order for payment into a victim's compensation fund. We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion as to this issue and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Evatt , No. CA-95-317-6-OAK (D.S.C. Sept. 16, 1996). We decline to review any claims Appellant seeks to raise for the first time on appeal. We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED3
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: ELMER E. TREMAINE 

DOCKET NUMBER: STIPULATION 55 

DATE: JULY 14, 1960 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STIPULATION OF COMPLIANCE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Elmer E. Tremaine 

Stipulation of Compliance under the Commodity Exchange Act No. 55 

The Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe that Elmer E. Tremaine has 

violated the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (17 CFR, Chapter 1) by 

virtue of certain transactions in oat futures as set forth below. 

No complaint with respect to such violation has been issued and the said 

Elmer E. Tremaine is desirous of disposing of the matter by entering into a 

stipulation of compliance, as authorized by section 0.4(a) of the Rules of 

Practice under the Commodity Exchange Act (17 CFR, 0.0-0.28). 

Therefore, the said Elmer E. Tremaine stipulates that the following facts are 

true: 

1. Elmer E. Tremaine, an individual whose address is 141 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, is now and was at all times mentioned herein a 

registered floor broker under the Commodity Exchange Act and a member of the 

Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, hereinafter called the Chicago Board of 

Trade, a duly designated contract market. 

2. On October 27, 1959, Elmer E. Tremaine received verbal orders from Merrill 

Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated to sell and buy for the account of a 

customer 20,000 bushels of May oats on the Chicago Board of Trade as close to 

the same price as possible, to close out and then reinstate the customer's 

position. 

3. Elmer E. Tremaine executed the above orders on the Chicago Board of Trade 

as follows: 

Bought Sold 

Quantity in Clearing Bushels and Clearing Broker Member Price Member Broker 

Elmer Tremaine Merrill Lynch 20,000 @ $ 0.72 5/8 A 

A 15,000 @ .72 5/8 Merrill Lynch Elmer Tremaine

B 5,000 @ .72 5/8 Merrill Lynch Elmer Tremaine

The Secretary of Agriculture has advised Elmer E. Tremaine that these were 

"wash trades" in violation of section 4c(A) of the Commodity Exchange Act. 

Elmer E. Tremaine agrees to desist from such transactions in the future, and 

to refrain from entering into "wash trades". He further understands and agrees 

that this stipulation shall be admissible as evidence of such acts and practices 

in any proceeding based upon transactions in addition to those referred to 

herein which may hereafter be 
Page 2 

brought by the Secretary of Agriculture against him under the provisions of the 

said act. He also understands that it is the practice of the Commodity Exchange 

Authority to make stipulations of compliance a matter of public record. 

Done at Chicago, Illinois, this 14 day of July 1960. 

/s/ Elmer E. Tremaine 

Elmer E. Tremaine 

Witnessed by: 

/s/ Albert W. Kibby 

/s/ Samuel F. Gordon 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 3
Exhibit 10.3


 


BRIGGS & STRATTON
CORPORATION


 


FORM 10-Q for Quarterly
Period Ended October 2, 2005


 


 


 


SUMMARY OF NAMED
EXECUTIVE OFFICER


SALARY INCREASE


 


Effective September 1,
2005


 





















 


Summary of Named
Executive Officer Salary Increases


 


Effective September 1, 2005, in connection with Mr. Todd J. Teske’s
appointment as Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer of Briggs
& Stratton Corporation (the “Corporation”), Mr. Teske’s annual salary was
increased to $450,000.


	
   

  	
   

  	
  Fiscal

  	
   

  	
  Base

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Year

  	
   

  	
  Salary

  	
   

  
	
  Todd J. Teske

  	
   

  	
  2005

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  450,000

  	
   

  
	
  Executive Vice President & Chief Operating
  Officer

  	
   

  	
  2004

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  252,735

  	
   

  



 


Information related to the other elements of total compensation for
this executive officer was previously disclosed in the 2005 Proxy Statement filed
September 21, 2005.
#### In re: Sharp Kabushiki KAISHA (also trading as Sharp Corporation).

No. 2006-1322.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 12, 2006.

MAYER, SCHALL, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM:

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
‘

 FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCT 31, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-13619

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 96-00041-CR-7-HL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

LYNDON WILLIAMS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

_________________________

(October 31, 2006)

Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Lyndon Williams, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of

his post-judgment motion to modify or reduce sentence, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
2

§ 3582(c)(2), and for reconsideration of the district court’s denial of his § 3582

motion, which he styled as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend

judgment. 

 As a preliminary matter, we reject the government’s argument that we lack

jurisdiction to decide this appeal due to Williams’s failure to perfect a timely

appeal of the denial of his § 3582 motion. We remanded Williams’s case to the

district court for a determination of excusable neglect or good cause for Williams’s

untimely filing of his notice of appeal, and the district court found that Williams’s

failure to file a timely notice of appeal was the result of excusable neglect and

granted the motion for extension of time. Accordingly, we proceed to consider the

merits of the Williams’s appeal. 

Williams argues that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738,

160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), provided grounds for reducing his sentence under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because Booker held that the mandatory sentencing guidelines

were unconstitutional. However, in United States v. Moreno, 421 F.3d 1217, 1220

(11th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 1643 (2006), we held that because Booker

is a Supreme Court decision and not a retroactively applicable guideline

amendment created by the Sentencing Commission, Booker is inapplicable to

§ 3582(c)(2) motions. 
3

Having reviewed the record, we discern no reversible error.

AFFIRMED.
#### Asa Nathanson et al., Appellants, v Tri-State Construction LLC et al., Respondents.

[876 NYS2d 17]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered March 19, 2008, insofar as it granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment to the extent of dismissing the second, third, fourth and fifth causes of action asserted in the amended complaint, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from that part of the aforesaid order incorporating prior rulings, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The court properly granted defendants’ motion to the extent of dismissing the fraud causes of action asserted in the amended *548complaint. Section 4.01 of the contract provided that “unless otherwise provided, Seller is the sole owner of the premises.” As found by the court, the Seller did “otherwise provide”—by handwritten amendment to the form contract which stated that “if at closing Seller does not have or cannot convey title the contract is rescinded,” a reference to the fact that the property was being “flipped.” Language expressly granting DeMaio, the escrow agent, permission to transfer all or part of the down payment held in escrow to a separate escrow account to be held as an additional deposit under the purchase contract also could only refer to the underlying contract between the owner, Vaij Realty, and Tri-State. Given the express terms of the contract, plaintiffs cannot claim to have been misled regarding the nature of the transaction.

Plaintiffs assert that other “issues of fact” warranted denial of defendants’ motion. However, the issues to which plaintiffs point, i.e., the legality of the purported assignment from plaintiffs to Omansky, whether defendants acknowledged same, and whether or not there was a financing contingency, go to which party breached the contract, and have no bearing on dismissal of the fraud claims.

Finally, plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to rescission of the contract since it is undisputed that defendants never had title to the property and were never in a position to convey title to the property. The contract does provide that “[i]f at closing seller does not have or cannot convey title, the contract is rescinded.” However, as the court found, there are factual issues concerning which party first breached the contract, precluding judgment as a matter of law on this issue.

To the extent plaintiffs seek appellate review of prior rulings on the cross motion with respect to amending the complaint, striking the answer, disqualifying defendants’ counsel and for a default judgment, which were set forth in transcripts not included in the record before us, the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the rules of this Court *(see*CPLR 5528 [a] [5]; Rules of App Div, 1st Dept [22 NYCRR] § 600.5 [a]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Teen Education Group,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending  September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Robert L. Wilson, Principal Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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.


Date: November 5, 2008



                                        By: /s/ ROBERT L. WILSON
                                            ___________________________
                                                Robert L. Wilson
                                                Principal Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<CIK>                          0000860744  
<NAME>                         GEODYNE INSTIT/PENSION ENERGY INCOME P-4 LTD PSHP
                                 
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                             108,550
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                      193,868
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   302,418
<PP&E>                           8,201,210
<DEPRECIATION>                   7,166,307
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   1,337,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    0
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                       1,337,321
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     1,337,321
<SALES>                            129,381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   130,329
<CGS>                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      104,467
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     25,862
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 25,862
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                        25,862
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0
        
 

</TABLE>
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Robert Allan HOLSTEIN.

No. D-2939.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Robert Allan Holstein, of Chicago, Illinois, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.