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



|CERTIFICATION
|-------------

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002



| | I, Carmine Stella, certify that:
| | --------------------------------

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Capital Beverage Corporation;

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 statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such 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 annual 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 annual report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15) for the registrant and I have:

a) designed such internal controls to ensure that material information relating to the registrant and its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") is made known to me by others within the Company, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's internal controls as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:

a) all significant deficiencies (if any) in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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; and

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:May 7, 2008



|/s/ Carmine Stella                   
|-------------------------------------
|Carmine Stella                       
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
|

---
# FILED
July 2, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT NASHVILLE FEBRUARY

1998 SESSION

STATE OF TENN ESSEE ) ) NO. 01C01-9703-CR-00094 Appellee ) ) PICKETT COUNTY v. ) ) HON. JOHN A. TURNBULL DAVI D L. HATHAW AY ) ) (D.U.I.) Appellant. ) )
CONCURRING OPINION I concur in the result rea ched by Jud ge Barker in his thoroug h opinion. Having co ncurred with Judge Wade in his opinion in State v. Jerry Wayne Edison , No. 03C01-9605-CC-00199 (Tenn. Cr im. App., Knoxville, June 18, 1997) that an abuse of discretion stan d ard applies to this court’s review of the tria l court’s ruling on the ad miss ibility

of intoximeter results, I write separately to indicate that I favor the Edison standard of review as opposed to the standard of preponderance of th e evidence to which Judge Bark e r adheres in this case. Iagree that the trial cour t’s decision would be affirm ed under either st andard o f review.

_________________________ CURWOOD WITT
STATE v. Walic Christopher THOMAS.

No. 435A96-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th day of December 2005 by Defendant for Removal of Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of January 2006."
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

 

I, Michael S. Gross, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Apollo Investment Corporation, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofApollo Investment Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisquarterly 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 theperiod covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flow of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. Theregistrant’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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterlyreport is being prepared; and 

 

b) evaluated the effectivenessof 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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over the financial reporting; 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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 reasonablylikely 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 controlover financial reporting. 

 

Dated this day ofFebruary 7, 2006
STATE of North Carolina v. Allen Richard HOLMAN, Sr.

No. 200A99-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2005.

Alexander Charns, Durham, Mary Sheehan Pollard, for Allen Richard Holman, Sr.

Diane A. Reeves, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

*855*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 8th day of December 2003 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Wake County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th day of August 2005."
# L_2016229EN.01000101.xml

| 24.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 229/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 229/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1407

of 12 August 2016

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pão de Ló de Ovar (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Portugal's application to register the name ‘Pão de Ló de Ovar’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Portugal's application to register the name ‘Pão de Ló de Ovar’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Pão de Ló de Ovar’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Pão de Ló de Ovar’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Pão de Ló de Ovar’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 2.3. Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker's wares, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 August 2016.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Violeta BULC

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 141, 22.4.2016, p. 16.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
STATE of North Carolina v. James Junior CUMMINGS.

No. 496P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 1, 2005.

Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for James Junior Cummings.

Thomas Meacham, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 6th day of September 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of December 2005."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of September 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of December 2005."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 6th day of September 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Polk County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of December 2005."
STATE of North Carolina v. Kenneth Wayne GOFORTH.

No. 389P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2005.

Julie Ramseur Lewis, Assistant Public Defender, for Kenneth Wayne Goforth.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, Roxann Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 25th day of July 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th day of August 2005."
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.21

                     AMENDMENT TO DEALERTRACK HOLDINGS, INC.

                             2001 STOCK OPTION PLAN

            1. Definitions. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise
defined shall have the meanings set forth in the DealerTrack Holdings, Inc. 2001
Stock Option Plan (the "Plan").

            2. Shares of Stock Subject to the Plan. Section 3(a) of the Plan is
hereby amended by replacing the number of shares of Common Stock subject to the
Plan in the first sentence of such Section 3(a) from "8,510,455" to
"13,061,000".

            3. Joinder to Stockholders' Agreement. Section 8(d) of the Plan is
hereby amended by inserting the words "Amended and Restated" before the phrase
"Stockholders' Agreement" in the first sentence of such Section 8(d) and
replacing the date of "August 10, 2001" with the phrase "as of December 28,
2001" in the same sentence thereof.

            4. Restrictions on Options and Optioned Shares. The legend in
Section 10(c) of the Plan is hereby amended by inserting the words "Amended and
Restated" before the phrase "Stockholders' Agreement" in the first sentence of
the second paragraph of such legend and replacing the date of "August 10, 2001"
with the date of "December 28, 2001" in the same sentence thereof.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Each of the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to their knowledge:

 

(1)         this periodic report fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)         the information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gander Mountain Company.

 
| Dated:  September 15, 2009 |                                                         |
|---------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                            | /s/ David C. Pratt                                           |
|                            | David C. Pratt                                               |
| * *                        | *Chairman of the Board and  Interim Chief Executive Officer* |
|                            |                                                         |
|                            |                                                         |
|                            | /s/ Robert J. Vold                                           |
|                            | Robert J. Vold                                               |
| * *                        | *Senior Vice President,*                                     |
| * *                        | *Chief Financial Officer and  Treasurer*                     |

 

----
COKER, et al. v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP.

No. 532A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 9, 2006.

Mona Lisa Wallace, Salisbury, Cathy Williams, K. Edward Greene, Raleigh, Gary K. Shipman, Wilmington, for James Coker, et al.

*468Allison O. Van Laningham, Greensboro, Raymond M. Kethledge, Troy, MI, for DaimlerChrysler Corp.

Jonathan Wall, Greensboro, for Academy of Trial Lawyers.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of January 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (DaimlerChrysler Corp.) shall have up to and including the 14th day of February 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 9th day of January 2006."
### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAY 29 , 2 003 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ N o. 01- 1514 8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ D. C. Docket N o. 00-00079 -CR- 1-RV UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us DA VI D H EN SO N MC NA B, ROBERT D. BLANDFORD, et al ., D ef en da nts -Appe llants .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 02- 1081 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D. C. Docket N o. 00-00079 -CR- CB UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us ABN ER SCH OE NW ET TE R, ROBERT D. BLANDFORD, D ef en da nts -Appe llants .2 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 02- 1126 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 00-00079 -CR- 1-RV UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us DA VI D H EN SO N MC NA B, ABNER SCHOENW ETTER, et al ., D ef en da nts -Appe llants .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court f o r t h e S o u t h e rn D i s t r i c t o f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 2 9, 200 3) Be fo re H U L L , W IL SO N a nd F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. ORDERED: T he pe tit ion s f

or r eh ea ri ng a re gr an te d inpa rt by de le tin g e nti re ly

f oot not e 24 f ro m the Co urt’ s op ini on w hic h w as iss ue d on Ma rc h 21 , 200 3. T he Co urt w ill iss ue asub sti tut ed

opi nio n m ak ing tha t de le tio n. T he Co urt othe rw ise de nie s th e petition s for re hearing of defendants’ McN abb, Sc hoenwetter, Huang, Blandford an d Em ba ss y of Ho nd ur as .3

N o m em be r of thi s C ourt ha vin g r eque ste d apol l, w e de ny the sug ge sti on fo r reh eari ng en ba nc . See F ed . R. A pp. P . 35( a) ; E le ve nth Ci rc uit Ru le 35- 5. FA Y , Ci rc uit

Jud ge , dis se nts .
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jonathan Robinson, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 514]

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael F. Pietruszka, J), rendered July 30, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree.

*1357It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and on the law by vacating the sentence and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Erie County Court for further proceedings in accordance with thefollowing memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]). Although defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in enhancing the sentence by imposing restitution at sentencing without affording him the opportunity to withdraw his plea (see *People v Therrien,*12 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2004]; *People v Delair,*6 AD3d 1152 [2004]), we nevertheless exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; *People v Cooke,*21 AD3d 1339 [2005]). Here, as in the case of defendant’s codefendant *(Cooke,*21 AD3d 1339 [2005]), we conclude that, because restitution was not part of the plea agreement, the court should have afforded defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea before ordering him to pay restitution *(see Therrien,*12 AD3d at 1046; *Delair,*6 AD3d at 1152; *People v Harrington,*3 AD3d 737, 738-739 [2004]). In addition, although defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in relying exclusively upon the victim impact statement attached to the presentence report in determining the amount of restitution *(see Therrien,*12 AD3d at 1046), we nevertheless further exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and we conclude that the court erred in failing to conduct a hearing to determine the amount of restitution *(see Cooke,*21 AD3d at 1339; *Therrien,*12 AD3d at 1046). We therefore modify the judgment by *vacating the*sentence, and we remit the matter to County Court to impose the promised sentence or to afford defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Kehoe, Martoche and Lawton, JJ.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of INTERNATIONAL CONSOLIDATED COMPANIES,
INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Neil Levine, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





1.           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated:  November
17, 2008





/s/ Neil
Levine


Neil
Levine


Chief
Financial Officer