alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Mark T. Taggatz, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Aquentium, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(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 small business issuer and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures 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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent 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 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: January 2, 2007 /s/ Mark T. Taggatz Mark T. Taggatz Chief Executive Officer
John HIGGINS, Jr., Petitioner v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

No. 19-5158

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

The petition for rehearing is denied.
TEXAS ADVANCED OPTOELECTRONIC SOLUTIONS, INC., petitioner, v. RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., fka Intersil Corporation.

No. 18-600.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
Shannon BRADLEY, Petitioner, v. Thomas A. COX, Jr.

No. 19-7037

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to
U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Carl Spana, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Palatin Technologies, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge, that the
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2006 of Palatin
Technologies, Inc. (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Palatin Technologies, Inc.

Dated:  February 7, 2007

/s/ Carl SpanaCarl Spana, President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Doris Johnson, Plaintiff, *v.*William M. Mahyna et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Onondaga County,

March 24, 1973.

*Hancock, Estabrook, Ryan, Shove & Hust (Bruce G. Soden*of counsel), for Leonard E. Abbott, defendant. *Bond, Schoeneck & King*for plaintiff. *Bucci £ Lockwood (M. June Lockwood*of counsel), for William M. Mahyna, defendant.

Richard N. Donovan, J.

Defendant Abbott’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

Plaintiff was injured and damaged when a collision occurred between her car and a vehicle owned by defendant Abbott which had been stolen and was being driven by defendant Mahyna.

For the purposes of this decision, it is assumed defendant Abbott had left his keys in the ignition of his vehicle when it was parked in his garage which was attached to his home and located upon his private property several feet from the public thoroughfare. Mrs. Abbott heard the car being taken from the garage and observed it being driven from the driveway onto the public street in front of their home. She immediately called the police and the defendant was apprehended a few minutes later after the accident with the plaintiff. Defendant Abbott has submitted a police report which shows the theft was reported prior to the accident together with other information establishing *2defendant Mahyna admitted theft of the automobile in a criminal proceeding.

Recognizing the fact the car was taken from private property rather than a public thoroughfare, plaintiff attempts to establish a cause of action against Abbott by relying upon the decisions in *Guaspari*v. *Gorsky*(36 A D 2d 225) and *Watts*v. *Colonial Sand & Stone Co.*(31 N Y 2d 685). In each case, the court considered the private property to be property used for vehicular traffic as either a private road or marginal street in allowing a cause of action. This court does not find those citations to be applicable but rather agrees with and makes a similar finding to that made by the court in *General Acc. Group*v. *Noonan*(66 Misc 2d 528).

Defendant Abbott shall submit an order in accordance with this decision dismissing the complaint against him.
Ruben S. RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 19-6951

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MICHELE LESHA XU, XIAO FENG XU,

 Plaintiffs, 

versus

CMH HOMES, INC., AMCAP 

MORTGAGE LTD., 

 Defendants. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

 NO. 1:23-cv-00319-MAC-ZJH

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On October 31, 2023, the court referred this case to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, 

United States Magistrate Judge, for pretrial management. Doc. No. 18. Plaintiffs Michele 

Lesha Xu and Xiao Feng Xu filed two amended complaints seeking to add AMCAP Mortgage 

LTD. as a defendant. Doc. Nos. 24, 36. On June 13, 2024, Judge Hawthorn issued his Report 

and Recommendation (Doc. No. 41), which recommended striking both amended complaints 

(Doc. Nos. 24, 36) and denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 25). 

The Court received and considered the Report and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings, and all available 

evidence. The parties have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time 

for doing so has passed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). After careful review, the Court finds 

that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the United States Magistrate Judge are correct.

Case 1:23-cv-00319-MAC-ZJH Document 44 Filed 07/02/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1626
2

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 41) is ADOPTED. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Petition 

(Doc. No. 24) and Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No 36) are STRICKEN. Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 25) is DENIED. 

________________________________________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 2nd day of July, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00319-MAC-ZJH Document 44 Filed 07/02/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1627
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6188
In Re: PETE SMITH, a/k/a Pete Noble Muhammad, a/k/a Jose,

Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-93-117) Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: April 19, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pete Smith, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Pete Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). He seeks an order from this Court directing the district court to act. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
Elza BUDAGOVA, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 18-8938

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,563,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  301,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    47,000
<INVENTORY>                                    336,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,756,000
<PP&E>                                       1,040,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,549,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,836,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       44,839,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           500
<OTHER-SE>                                (37,004,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              (37,003,000)
<SALES>                                      7,744,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            44,721,000
<CGS>                                        9,924,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               26,748,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            43,980,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,914,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (29,921,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (5,727,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (24,194,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (24,194,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

HORACE BABINEAUX §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv29

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID §

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Horace Babineaux, proceeding pro se, brought this petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack

Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the

petition be denied.

The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States 

Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings. No objections were filed to the Report and

Recommendation.

ORDER

Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct

and the report of the Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 12] is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. A final

judgment shall be entered in accordance with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

In addition, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of

appealability. An appeal from a judgment denying federal habeas relief may not proceed unless a

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See U.S.C. § 2253. The standard that must be met in

order to receive a certificate of appealability requires the petitioner to make a substantial showing

of the denial of a federal constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000);

Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2004). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner

is not requited to demonstrate that he would prevail on the merits. Rather, he need only demonstrate

Case 1:23-cv-00029-MJT-ZJH Document 14 Filed 09/13/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 176
that the issues are subject to debate among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in

a different manner, or that the questions presented in the petition are worthy of encouragement to

proceed further. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84. Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate

of appealability should be resolved in favor of the petitioner, and the severity of the penalty may be

considered in making this determination. See Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir.

2000).

In this case, the petitioner has not shown that the issue of whether his petition is meritorious

is subject to debate among jurists of reason. The factual and legal questions raised by petitioner

have been consistently resolved adversely to his position and the questions presented are not worthy

of encouragement to proceed further. As a result, a certificate of appealability shall not issue. 

 ____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 13th day of September, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00029-MJT-ZJH Document 14 Filed 09/13/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 177
Barry Wayne ADAMS, Petitioner v. CALHOUN COUNTY, MICHIGAN, et al.

No. 19-7200

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin* v. *District of Columbia Court of Appeals* , 506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
EXHIBIT32

       CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Theundersigned, Jeffrey I. Friedman, Chairman of the Board and Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Lou Fatica, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofAssociated Estates Realty Corporation (the "Company"), certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the period ended June 30, 2007, which this certificationaccompanies, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a-14 and 15d-14of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.         The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

|                         |
|-------------------------|
| /s/ Jeffrey I. Friedman |
| Jeffrey I. Friedman     |
|                         |
|                         |
| /s/ Lou Fatica          |
| Lou Fatica              |
|                         |
| July 31, 2007           |
| Date                    |

A signed original of this written statement has beenprovided to Associated Estates Realty Corporation and will be retained byAssociated Estates Realty Corporation and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

G:\2007Q\2Q07\SEC\JIFLFCER.HTM

----
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED LAUREN BOWMAN ,

Appellant , Case No. 5D 23

- 632 LT Case No. 2022

- 689

- CF v. STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. ________________________________/ Decision filed June 27, 2023 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County, Don H. Lester, Judge. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Natalie R. Gossett, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flan a gan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appel l ee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. EISNAUGLE , KILBANE an d MACIVER, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997             JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997             OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,871,162                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  901,915                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    686,831                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,491,808                       0
<PP&E>                                       1,502,184                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,993,992                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          593,123                       0
<BONDS>                                        179,324                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        16,124                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,205,421                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,993,999                       0
<SALES>                                      4,882,063               1,899,446
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,882,063               1,899,446
<CGS>                                        3,418,431               1,365,662
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,015,614                 350,367
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (59,268)                (17,494)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                388,750                 165,923
<INCOME-TAX>                                   136,062                  63,643
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            252,688                 102,280
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   252,688                 102,280
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17                     .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17                     .07
        



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 211 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 211

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 920 West Riverside Avenue in Spokane, Washington, as the ``Thomas S. 
 Foley United States Courthouse'', and the plaza at the south entrance 
   of such building and courthouse as the ``Walter F. Horan Plaza''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 211

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 920 West Riverside Avenue in Spokane, Washington, as the ``Thomas S. 
 Foley United States Courthouse'', and the plaza at the south entrance 
   of such building and courthouse as the ``Walter F. Horan Plaza''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 920 West Riverside Avenue in Spokane, Washington, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Thomas S. Foley United States 
Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``Thomas S. Foley United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF PLAZA.

    (a) Designation.--The plaza located at the south entrance of the 
Federal building and United States courthouse referred to in section 
1(a) shall be known and designated as the ``Walter F. Horan Plaza''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the plaza referred to in 
subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Walter F. 
Horan Plaza''.

            Passed the House of Representatives August 2, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Francis Damien BLOCK, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7510

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.