alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, **Francis R. McAllister,**certify that;
1.  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of StillwaterMining Company (the “Company”); 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4.  The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f)) for the Company and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and proceduresto be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the Company,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b)  Designed such internal control over financialreporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reportingand the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and  d)  Disclosed in this report any change in theCompany’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Company’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5.  The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe Company’s Board of Directors:
 a)  All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect theCompany’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have asignificant role in the Company’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.        Dated: March 30, 2005 /s/ Francis R. McAllister   Francis R. McAllister   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Michael R. SCALIA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6130.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
No. 682.

#### Mather & Co. *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

C. A. 3d Cir.

*Frederick H. Spotts, Thomas Stokes*and *George Wharton Pepper*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General Caudle, Ellis N. Slack, Lee A. Jackson*and *S. Walter Shine*for respondent.

Certiorari denied.
Case 3:07-cv-01301 Document 45 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 9
Case 3:07-cv-01301 Document 45 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 2 of 9
Case 3:07-cv-01301 Document 45 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 3 of 9
Case 3:07-cv-01301 Document 45 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 4 of 9
Case 3:07-cv-01301 Document 45 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 5 of 9
Case 3:07-cv-01301 Document 45 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 6 of 9
Case 3:07-cv-01301 Document 45 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 7 of 9
Case 3:07-cv-01301 Document 45 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 8 of 9
Case 3:07-cv-01301 Document 45 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 9 of 9
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136861 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136861 

 COA: 281824 

Wayne CC: 05-009379-01

DOMINICK DENNIS CHAROBEE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 19, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1117 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 25, 2008 

 Clerk
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

UNPUBLISHED

November 10, 2022

v No. 358389

Calhoun Circuit Court

KEVIN THEODORE WILSON, LC No. 2020-001489-FH

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: SAWYER, P.J., and MARKEY and SWARTZLE, JJ.

SWARTZLE, J. (concurring in part, dissenting in part).

While I agree that this matter should be returned to the trial court, I would vacate the trial 

court’s dismissal of charges rather than outright reverse. It appears that there was some confusion 

in the record as to the precedential effect of People v Borowka, unpublished per curiam opinion of 

the Court of Appeals, issued September 17, 2019 (Docket No. 346398), a case upon which I sat. 

The analysis in Borowka clearly supported the trial court’s dismissal here, although neither the 

analysis nor the holding dictated that dismissal. Accordingly, I would remand the matter for the

sole purpose of permitting the trial court to reconsider its dismissal in light of the fact that Borowka

was an unpublished decision.

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LI JUN SONG, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-71612 Age n c y No. A077-292-832 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d August 25, 2015 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , C LIFTON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. Li Jun Song, a

native and c itiz e n of C hina , pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his motion to re o pe n re m ova l proc e e d ings. Our jurisdiction is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a b use of disc re tion theB IA’ s de nia l of a m otion to re ope n. N

ajmabadi v . 

# FIL ED SEP 03 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th C ir. 2010). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing Song’ s m otion to re ope n whe re the m o tion wa s file d m ore tha n two y e ars a fte r the B IA’ s fina l a dm inistra

tive orde r, se e 8 C . F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2), and Song fa ile d to e sta blish m ate ria l ly c ha nge d c irc um sta

nc e s a rising in C hina to qua lify for the re gula tory e xc e ption to the

tim e lim ita

tion for m otions to re o pe n, se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(3)(ii); Hev . Gonzale s , 501 F.3d 1128, 1132-33 (9th C i r. 2007) (doc um e ntation insuffic ie nt to e sta blish c ha nge d c i rc um sta

nc e s); s e ealso N ajmabadi , 597 F.3d a

t 987 (re quiring tha

t e vide nc e of c h ange d

c ountry c onditions

“ be ‘ qua lita

tive ly diffe re nt’ from

the e vide nc e pre se nte d at the pre vious he aring” ) (c ita tion omitte d). Furthe r, in light of our de c ision in Song v . Holde r , No. 08-73864, 2010 W L 2354204 (9th C ir. June 11, 2010), wedo not c onside r any c ha lle n ge Song ra ise s to the a ge nc y ’ s unde rly ing a d ve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination. W e a lso la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Song’ s re que sts for c anc e lla tion of re m ova l, a djustm e nt of sta tus, a nd hum anita

rian re lie f, be c a

use he did not pre se nt those re que sts to the

a ge nc y . Se e Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir.

2 1 1 - 7 1 6 1 22004) (this c ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to re vie w issue s or c la im s not ra i se d be fore the

a ge nc y ). Fina lly , we de ny

Song’ s m otions to not a ssign his c a se to a m e rits pa ne l. W e a lso de ny

Song’ s m otion for ora l a

rgum e nt. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

3 1 1 - 7 1 6 1 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000863832
<NAME> GEODYNE INSTITUTIONAL/PENSION ENERGY INCOME P-5 LIMITED PART
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         172,785
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  139,269
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               312,054
<PP&E>                                      10,297,812
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,016,267
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,593,599
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,593,599
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,593,599
<SALES>                                        750,913
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               826,652
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,351,953
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (525,301)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (525,301)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (525,301)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE V. ERNEST V. MALTBY 

DOCKET NUMBER: GFA-4 

DATE: 1934 

DOCUMENT TYPE: SUMMARY OF CASE 

NOTE: PROCEEDING BEFORE THE GRAIN FUTURES COMMISSION UNDER THE GRAIN FUTURES ACT 

GFA Docket No. 4 

United States, complainant 

vs. 

Ernest V. Maltby, defendant 

The Rural Grain Company was suspended from membership on the Chicago Board of 

Trade on June 7, 1930, a result of bankruptcy arising from speculation on the 

part of Ernest V. Maltby, general manager. 

A criminal information was filed in April 1931 in the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois. 

Mr. Maltby, as manager of Rural Grain Company, was charged with failure to 

evidence grain futures contracts by a record in writing. It was alleged that 

his own personal trades in grain futures were concealed on the books of the 

company under names of purported customers. The company failed while the 

investigation was in progress. Mr. Maltby disappeared, was apprehended in 

October 1931 by Federal agents, and returned to Chicago for trial. In the 

meantime, Mr. Maltby was arrested on State charges of embezzlement. 

On March 25, 1932, Justice attorneys recommended that the action be dismissed 

for lack of evidence to support a charge of failure to keep proper records. The 

case was closed with no further action by the Grain Futures Administration. 

On February 8, 1933, Mr. Maltby was found guilty of embezzlement by the State 

of Illinois. The case was retried on November 28, 1933, and Mr. Maltby was 

found innocent. He was tried on a second count of embezzlement by the State of 

Illinois and was found innocent on December 6, 1934. 

LOAD-DATE: December 15, 2008 
Page 2
<PAGE>

                                                            EXHIBIT 11
KENAN TRANSPORT COMPANY
Statement Re Computation of Per Share Earnings
(In thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
                                                 Three Months Ended       Six Months Ended
                                                      June 30,                 June 30,    
                                                --------------------    --------------------
                                                  1998        1997        1998        1997  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                              <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>     

Net income                                       $1,154      $  810      $2,329      $1,786
                                                ============================================

Shares:
Beginning shares outstanding                      2,395       2,389       2,395       2,389

Shares issued under executive incentive plan          6           6          27           6
                                                --------------------------------------------
      Basic shares outstanding                    2,401       2,395       2,422       2,395 

Dilutive effect of outstanding options                3         --            1         --
                                                --------------------------------------------
      Diluted shares outstanding                  2,404       2,395       2,423       2,395
                                                ============================================

Basic and diluted earnings per share             $  .48      $  .34      $  .97      $  .75
                                                ============================================

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into the previously filed
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-38022 and 333-50500)
of TTR Technologies, Inc.("TTR") of our report dated February 25, 2004 relating
to the financial statements which appear in TTR's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2003.





                /s/ MARCUM & KLIEGMAN, LLP

                CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



New York City, New York
March 29, 2004
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. No. 33,811 4 MICHAEL ALDACO, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY 7 Jane Shuler Gray, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Margaret McLean, Assistant Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 SUTIN, Judge. 172 {1} Defendant appeals from the district c ourt’s judgment and sentence, convicting 1 him of commercial burglary. [RP 112] The judgment and sentence were entered after 2 a non-jury trial and following the district court’s decision to deny Defendant’s motion 3 to strike the commercial burglary charge. [DS] 4
{2} On the basis of this Court’s opinion in State v. Archuleta , ____-NMCA-___, 5 ___ P.3d ___ (No. 32,794, Oct. 27, 2014), cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-__, ___ P.3d 6 ___ (No. 35,005, Jan. 26, 2015), we issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, 7 proposing to reverse. The State has res ponded with an objection to our notice and a 8 request to hold this appeal in abeyance or provide the State with a reasonable 9 opportunity to seek guidance from the Ne w Mexico Supreme Court on all pending 10 appeals controlled by our opinion in Archuleta . [MIO 1-2] Wehave provided the 11 State with such an opportunity, and the Supreme Court has denied the State a stay or 12 other remedy that would suspend the precedential value of Archuleta . Thus, pursuant 13 to Rule 12-405(C) NMRA, we apply Archuleta. SeeRule 12-405(C) (“A petition for 14 a writ of certiorari filed pursuant to Ru le 12-502 NMRA or a Supreme Court order 15 granting the petition does not affect the preced ential value of an opinion of the Court 16 of Appeals, unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.”). 17
{3} In its response to our notice, the State simply objects to our proposed 18 disposition without elaboration. [MIO 1] We continue to believe that there are no 193 material factual distinctions to remove this case from the control of our opinion in 1 Archuleta . For the reasons stated in our notice, we reverse Defendant’s conviction for 2 commercial burglary. 3
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

__________________________________ 5 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 6

WE CONCUR: 7

_______________________________ 8 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 9

_______________________________ 10 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 11
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: BENEDICT K. GOODMAN 

DOCKET NUMBER: 81 

DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 1960 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STAY ORDER 

NOTE: ANOTHER VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS REPORTED IN THE AGRICULTURAL DECISION 

AT 19 AGRIC. DEC. 65 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re Benedict K. Goodman, Respondent 

CEA Docket No. 81 

Stay Order 

On January 20, 1960, an order was entered in this proceeding dismissing 

respondent's petition for reconsideration and reinstating the order of October 

12, 1959, prescribing sanctions to become effective on March 1, 1960. 

Respondent has filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Seventh Circuit. Accordingly, the order of January 20, 1960, is stayed pending 

the outcome of the court appeal. 

Copies hereof shall be served upon the parties and upon the contract markets. 

Done at Washington, D. C. 

February 12, 1960 

Thomas J. Flavin 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Timothy FLAKES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30015

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Betty Lee Marak, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Timothy Flakes, Jr., federal prisoner # 13246-035, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the retroactive amendment to the crack cocaine Guideline. He argues that, notwithstanding his status as a career offender, the district court should have the authority pursuant to § 3582(c)(2), in this *post-United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), era of advisory Guidelines, to reduce his sentence based on its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Flakes also argues that his career offender status did not preclude the district court from reducing his sentence because his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 was a necessary starting point in the calculation of his guidelines range, and the career offender Guideline requires a comparison between it and the offense level provided by U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b).

As Flakes acknowledges, his arguments are foreclosed by circuit precedent. *See United States v. Anderson,*591 F.3d 789, 790-91 (5th Cir.2009); *United States v. Doublin,*572 F.3d 235, 236-39 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 517, 175 L.Ed.2d 366 (2009); *see also Dillon v. United States,*— U.S.-,---, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691-94, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
No. 490, Misc.

#### Coyle *v.*California, 337 U. S. 909.

Rehearing denied.
Ryan Gerald RUSSELL, petitioner, v. ALABAMA.

No. 15-9918.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
**Fund**/Ticker

**Fidelity**®**Emerging Asia Fund**/FSEAX

**Summary Prospectus**

**December 29, 2012**
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: COMMODITY CONSULTANTS, INC. AND PETER F. SCHOENFELD 

DOCKET NUMBER: 163 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA Docket No. 163 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Commodity Consultants, Inc., 

Peter F. Schoenfeld 

(Los Angeles, California) 

The complaint charges that as of May 6, 1969, the respondent corporation, a 

registered futures commission merchant under the act, failed to meet minimum 

financial requirements prescribed for futures commission merchants. The 

complaint alleges that Mr. Schoenfeld was president of the corporation and its 

operations were under his direction and control. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, August 5, 1969, in Los Angeles, California. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2