alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12.1



Section 302 Certification



I, Gary Freeman, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Wealth Minerals Ltd.;



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



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



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



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



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



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.



Date: October 28, 2005





/s/Gary Freeman



Gary Freeman



Chief Executive Officer
William REAVES, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 17-8428.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
H. R. 4034 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 602 Pacific 

Avenue in Bremerton, Washington, as the ‘‘John Henry Turpin Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. JOHN HENRY TURPIN POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 602 Pacific Avenue in Bremerton, Washington, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘John Henry Turpin Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘John Henry Turpin Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

30745 

26-OCT-2010 

03:04 PM 

NO. 30745
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I 

RONDA LEE RAMOS-ELSENBACH, Petitioner,
 

vs.
 

THE HONORABLE LLOYD VAN DE CAR, JUDGE OF

THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I;

and THE HONORABLE GREG K. NAKAMURA, SENIOR JUDGE OF THE

FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I,

Respondents. 


ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
 

(FC-D No. 07-01-132K)
 

ORDER
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.


and Circuit Judge McKenna, assigned by reason of vacancy)
 

Upon consideration of petitioner Ronda Lee
 

Ramos-Elsenbach's petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers
 

in support, it appears that: (1) petitioner fails to demonstrate
 

a clear and indisputable right to the relief requested; (2)
 

petitioner can seek review of the respondent judges' rulings by
 

appealing from the divorce decree entered in FC-D 07-1-132K; and
 

(3) the question of the disqualification of the presiding judge 

is not a question that cannot otherwise be reviewed on 

petitioner's appeal from the divorce decree. Therefore, 

petitioner is not entitled to extraordinary relief. See Kema v. 

Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of 
mandamus or prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that will not
 

issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable
 

right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress
 

adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. 


Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal discretionary
 

authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as
 

legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures.); Peters
 

v. Jamieson, 48 Haw. 247, 257, 397 P.2d 575, 582-83 (1964) (A
 

writ of prohibition will lie to compel the disqualification of a
 

trial judge where the question of disqualification cannot
 

otherwise be reviewed.). Accordingly,
 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
 

mandamus is denied.
 

DATED: 	 Honolulu, Hawaii, October 26, 2010. '

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. 

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. 


/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
 

2
Andy BUXTON, petitioner, v. Fred HILL, et al.

No. 17-8069.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN MEDIA OPERATIONS, INC. FOR THE THREE AND SIX
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1997
<CASH>                                           7,227
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,672
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,304
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,565
<PP&E>                                          39,876
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,002
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 652,652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          131,693
<BONDS>                                        457,865
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,367
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   652,652
<SALES>                                        161,725
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               161,725
<CGS>                                          119,597
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119,597
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   859
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,734
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,535
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,623
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,912
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,912
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Raymond STERN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6904.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of *Hughes v. United States,* 584 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1765, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2018).
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.2

                            DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF
                                 TRANSDIGM INC.
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

The undersigned directors and officers of TransDigm Holding Company, hereby
constitute and appoint Gregory Rufus, with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, as attorney-in-fact for each of the undersigned, and in the
name, place and stead of each of the undersigned, to execute on behalf of each
of the undersigned an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2000 pursuant to Section 13 of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and to execute any and all amendments to such report and to file the same,
with all exhibits thereto and other documents required to be filed in connection
therewith, granting to such attorney full power to act with or without the
others, and to have full power and authority to do and perform, in the name and
on behalf of each of the undersigned, every act whatsoever necessary, advisable
or appropriate to be done in the premises, hereby ratifying and approving the
act of said attorney and any such substitute.

This Power of Attorney may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original with respect to the person executing it.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          EXECUTED as of December 28, 2000.
<S>                                                           <C>

              /s/Douglas W.  Peacock                                               /s/ William Hopkins
-------------------------------------------------             ------------------------------------------------------------
                Douglas W.  Peacock                                            William Hopkins, Director
            Chairman of the Board and
         Chief Executive Officer
         (Principal Executive Officer)

              /s/W.  Nicholas Howley                                               /s/ Muzzafar Mirza
-------------------------------------------------             ------------------------------------------------------------
                W.  Nicholas Howley                                             Muzzafar Mirza, Director
      President and Chief Operating Officer
           (Principal Operating Officer)




                 /s/Stephen Berger                                                 /s/John W.  Paxton
-------------------------------------------------             ------------------------------------------------------------
             Stephen Berger, Director                                          John W.  Paxton, Director




              /s/Thomas R.  Wall, IV
-------------------------------------------------
           Thomas R.  Wall, IV, Director
</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10384 

(Summary Calendar)

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JEREMIAH POWELL,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(USDC No. 4:94-CR-126-A)

- - - - - - - - - -

May 17, 1996

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jeremiah Powell appeals his conviction for possession of

marijuana with intent to distribute. He contends that district

court impermissibly limited the scope of cross-examination and that

the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Our

review of the record and the arguments and authorities convinces us

that no reversible error was committed. The court's limitation of

repetitive cross-examination did not rise to the level of plain
2

error. See United States v. Coleman, 997 F.2d 1101, 1105 (5th Cir.

1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 893 (1994). The evidence was

sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Powell guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt. See United States v. Pennington, 20 F.3d 593,

597 (5th Cir. 1994). 

AFFIRMED.
Lance R. MARTIN, petitioner, v. Daniel PARAMO, Warden, et al.

No. 16-8892.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                            1679
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    24946
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1587
<INVENTORY>                                      17975
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 45883
<PP&E>                                           32935
<DEPRECIATION>                                   20824
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   58331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           744509
<BONDS>                                         248781
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        100
<COMMON>                                         55948
<OTHER-SE>                                    (746423)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     58331
<SALES>                                          44851
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 44872
<CGS>                                            41990
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    47742
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               18267
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (21137)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (21137)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (21137)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NUTRACEUTICAL CORPORATION, petitioner, v. Troy LAMBERT.

No. 17-1094.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 Certification
 I, John D. Doherty, certify that:
 1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Central Bancorp, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date:  June 18, 2010
    /s/ John D. DohertyJohn D. DohertyChairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 406 71 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
CHRISTOPHER PARISH GRUBBS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13

- CR

- 92

- 10

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Christopher Parish Grubbs has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Grubbs h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 1, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40671 Document: 00513858251 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2017No. 16

- 406 71

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel i s excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-40671 Document: 00513858251 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2017
---

---

EXHIBIT 12.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Tom Wyler, certify
that:

1.    
          I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Optibase Ltd.;

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 company as of, and for,
          the periods presented in this report;

4.    
          The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
          establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
          Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company 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 company, 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 company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 companys internal control over
          financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report
          that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
          companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5.    
          The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
          our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
          companys auditors and the audit committee of companys board of
          directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

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 company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 companys internal control over
          financial reporting.

Date: May 14, 2007

/s/ Tom Wyler
Tom Wyler
Chief Executive Officer



---

---