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

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATION

Principal Executive Officer & Principal Financial Officer

I, Robert M. Baker, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of High Grade Mining Corp.;

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 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 registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an quarterly 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 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 control over financial reporting.



|Date: April 13, 2005 | /s/ Robert M. Baker                                 
|-------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------
|                     | Robert M. Baker                                     
|                     | President, Principal Executive Officer and Principal
|                     | Financial Officer
BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. v. N.C. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

No. COA05-820.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 18, 2006.

Certification Date May 8, 2006.

Appeal from the Dept. of Health & Human Services (04DHR516).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. GETER

No. COA05-242.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed November 15, 2005.

Certification Date December 5, 2005

Appeal from the Catawba (04CRS50659, 04CRS50660).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
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 Marketing Worldwide, Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael Winzkowski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
my knowledge 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/
      Michael WinzkowskiMichael
      WinzkowskiChief
      Executive OfficerDate:
      May 15,
2009
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of CUNO Incorporated ("CUNO") of our report dated December 11, 2001, included in
the 2001 Annual Report to Shareholders of CUNO.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of CUNO listed in Item
14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the
financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to
the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material
respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-39763) pertaining to the CUNO Incorporated 1996 Stock
Incentive Plan, the CUNO Incorporated Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan,
and the CUNO Incorporated Savings and Retirement Plan and the registration
statement (Form S-8 No. 333-54388) pertaining to the CUNO Incorporated 1996
Stock Incentive Plan and the CUNO Incorporated Non-employee Directors' Stock
Option Plan of our report dated December 11, 2001, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements incorporated herein by reference, and our
report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial
statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of CUNO.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
----------------------
Hartford, Connecticut
January 16, 2002
McGLADREY & PULLEN v. BOARD OF CPA EX.

No. 469A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 22, 2005.

William L. Rikard, Jr., Kristin R. Poolos, Charlotte, Jack L. Cozort, for McGladrey & Pullen.

M. Jackson Nichols, Raleigh, for Board of CPA Examiners.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st day of December 2005 by Defendant for extension of time to file brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Board of CPA Examiners) shall have up to and including the 27th day of January 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 22nd day of December 2005."
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 on Form 10-Q of American Patriot Corporation (the Company) for the three months ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

|     |                                                                                                                                                     
|---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(i)  | The Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and      
|    
|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|    



| |        |                            
| | ------ | ---------------------------
| |        |                            
| | By:    | /s/ Colt Wohlers           
| | Name:  | Colt Wohlers               
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer    
| |        | And Chief Financial Officer
| | Date:  | August 04, 2009            





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

No. 532A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 1, 2005.

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

William G. Wright, for Plaintiff.

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th day of November 2005 by Defendant to Amend Record on Appeal:

*786"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 1st day of December 2005."
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ohlin Branch, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 645]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated May 1, 2000 *(People v Branch,*272 AD2d 338 [2000]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered August 25, 1997.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). H. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Cozier and Santucci, JJ., concur.
U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

Fact Sheet

How OSC’s Mediation Program Works

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) offers Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to resolve 

selected prohibited personnel practices (PPP) and USERRA complaints that have been filed with OSC. (See 

Fact Sheet on How Complaints are Received and Processed.)

Review and Convening 

• OSC’s investigative staff refers select cases to OSC’s ADR Unit for review. If the ADR Unit

determines that a case is a good candidate for mediation, an OSC ADR Specialist contacts the

complainant and the employing agency to invite them to participate in the mediation program. If both

parties agree, OSC will assign mediators who will work with the parties to prepare for and schedule a

mediation.

• If a party chooses not to mediate, the case will be returned to the appropriate OSC investigation unit

for further action. The investigation unit will not have access to information regarding which party

declined mediation.

• Participation in the Mediation Program is completely voluntary. All parties (and OSC) have the right to

withdraw from the process at any time; if this occurs the case will simply proceed to the appropriate

OSC investigation unit.

Pre-Mediation Process 

• OSC mediators engage in meaningful pre-mediation discussions with each party to identify their

interests, the context of the dispute, possible options for resolution, and other factors. During this

time, each party may consult with an OSC subject matter expert.

• In some cases, these pre-mediation discussions will result in a resolution. In most cases, however, we

schedule a mediation date where the parties and mediators attend in person or by video. And the premediation discussions ensure that time on the mediation date is well-spent.

• Mediation is a fast-moving process that will normally be completed within 3-4 months after the

mediators are assigned to the case. If you choose to mediate, please ensure that you will be available to

participate in these pre-mediation discussions and the mediation within this timeframe. 

Resolution 

• Should the case resolve in mediation, a settlement agreement will be drafted and signed by both parties,

and the OSC complaint will be closed.

• If a settlement is not reached, the complaint will proceed to investigation as if no mediation occurred.

(See Fact Sheet on How Complaints are Investigated and Prosecuted.) Again, anything discussed in the mediation

session remains confidential within the ADR Unit, and the OSC mediators have no further involvement

with the case.

For more information about OSC’s mediation process, see the ADR Frequently Asked Questions available at 

https://osc.gov/Pages/ADR-FAQs.aspx. 

Revised August 2019
STATE of North Carolina v. James Emanuel SILAS.

No. 171PA05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Thomas K. Maher, Chapel Hill, for James Emanuel Silas.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Attorney General on the 28th day of March *392005 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2005."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 28th day of March 2005 by Attorney General 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2005."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
Terry W. BOWLES, Employee-Plaintiff v. BCJ TRUCKING SERVICES, Employer. North Carolina Selective Fund, Reliance National Insurance Company, (Dennis Insurance Group, Servicing Agent), and North Carolina Insurance Guaranty Association, North Carolina Self-Insurance Guaranty Association, Carriers-Defendants and North Carolina Department of Insurance, Intervenor.

No. 498P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

Janet H. Downing, for Bowles.

Christopher J. Blake, Joseph W. Eason, Raleigh, for Guaranty Assoc.

Charlot Wood, for BCJ Trucking Services.

Clementine Peterson, Assistant Attorney General, for NC Department of Insurance.

Catherine R. Stuart, for NC Self Ins. Guaranty Assoc.

Charles C. Kyles, Raleigh, for NC Ins. Guaranty Assoc.

Patrick E. Kelly, Charlotte, for NC Selective Fund.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of September 2005 by Defendant (NC Ins. Guarnty Assoc) 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 3rd day of November 2005."
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000450

04-DEC-2014

08:24 AM
STATE v. Percell WATKINS, Jr.

No. 208P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 19, 2005.

Daniel R. Pollitt, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Percell Watkins, Jr.

Joel H. Brewer, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th day of April 2005 by Plaintiff for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 19th day of April 2005."
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 50169 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Normando Eligio Esquivel**

**- Ontiveros,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 898

- 1

Before **Davis, Duncan,**  and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Normando Eligio Esquivel

- Ontiveros appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). On appeal, he argues that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 1, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-50169 Document: 00516529775 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2022No. 22

- 50169

2 other wise

- applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a), based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Esquivel

- Ontiveros acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. U nited States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. Accordingly, he has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition. We have held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as Alleyne v. United State s , 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez

- Torres

. See United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553

- 54 (5th Cir. 2019). Esquivel

- Ontiveros is correct that his argument is foreclosed. Because his pos ition “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” summary affirmance is proper. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, Esquivel

- Ontiveros ’s motion for summary disposition is **GRANTED** , and the judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 22-50169 Document: 00516529775 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2022
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Form S-8 (No. 333-31820),
Form S-8 (No. 333-43412) and Form S-8 (No. 333-68292) pertaining to the HealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc. Stock
Option Plan of our report dated February 21, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of HealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc. and Subsidiaries included
in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

Atlanta,
Georgia

March
24, 2003

/s/
Ernst & Young LLP

---

QuickLinks
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5390 

To reduce temporarily the duty on 4-ADPA. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2008 

Mr. BROWN of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on 4-ADPA. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. 4-ADPA. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.l.l 4-Aminodiphenylamine (CAS 

No. 101–54–2) (provided for 

in subheading 2921.51.50) ... 3.6% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5390 IH

1 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
<PAGE>   1


                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.19

                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                         SERVICES AND SUPPORT AGREEMENT

         This First Amendment to Services and Support Agreement (the "First
Amendment") effective as of February 1, 1999, is by and between Coast Dental
Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("CDS") and Coast Dental Southeast,
P.A., a Georgia professional association (the "Dental Practice Entity").

                                R E C I T A L S

         WHEREAS, CDS and Dental Practice Entity are parties to that certain
Services and Support Agreement dated as of September 29, 1997 (the "Services
and Support Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, CDS and the Dental Practice Entity are now desirous of
modifying the Services and Support Agreement in accordance with the terms of
the First Amendment.

         NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by the parties, the parties agree
to modify, supplement and amend the Services and Support Agreement as follows:

         1. Recitals. The statements contained in the Recitals of facts set
forth above are true and correct and are by this reference made a part of the
First Amendment.

         2. Service and Support Fee. Exhibit "A" to the Services and Support
Agreement is hereby amended to change the S&S Fee percentage to Seventy-three
percent (73%).

         3. Deletion of Section 3.4. The Services and Support Agreement is
hereby modified to delete Section 3.4 related to the payments to the Dental
Practice Entity for added internally developed Dental Centers.

         4. Other Provisions. All of the terms and provisions contained in the
Services and Support Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless
specifically modified, supplemented or amended by the First Amendment.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and
seals on the day and year first above written.

                                         "DENTAL PRACTICE ENTITY"

                                         COAST DENTAL SOUTHEAST, P.A.

                                         By: /s/ Adam Diasti
                                            ----------------------------------
                                                 Adam Diasti, President
                                         "CDS"

                                         COAST DENTAL SERVICES, INC.



                                         By: /s/ Terek Diasti
                                            ----------------------------------
                                                 Terek Diasti, 
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
STATE v. BRODIE

No. COA04-1355

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed August 16, 2005

Certification Date September 6, 2005

Appeal from Wake (03CRS6223, 03CRS33740).

Cases reported without published opinion. Reversed.
STATE v. Dane LOCKLEAR, Jr.

No. 578A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 19, 2005.

William P. Hart, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th day of December 2005 by Defendant to Extend Time to Prepare Transcript:

"Motion Allowed. Court reporter shall have up to and including the 2nd day of February 2006 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel. By order of the Court in conference this the 19th day of December 2005."