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

 

CERTIFICATION 

 

I, John E. Presley, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of American Access Technologies, 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 thestatements 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 thefinancial 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 oursupervision, 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 beingprepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe 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 suchevaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this reportany 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 anannual 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 ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe 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 involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 26, 2004 

 

/s/John E. Presley 

President and Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Tracy G. Osuna, Appellant, v Monroe County Department of Human and Health Services et al., Respondents.

[801 NYS2d 550]

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Counsel’s motion to be relieved of assignment granted *(see Matter of Jordan S.,*179 AD2d 1091 [1992]). (Appeal from Order of Family Court, Monroe County, John J. Rivoli, J.—Custody). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Gorski, Martoche, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,666
<SECURITIES>                                   280,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,326
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               351,292
<PP&E>                                         222,643
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,623
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 820,907
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          316,621
<BONDS>                                        468,747
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,845
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   820,907
<SALES>                                        158,104
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               258,104
<CGS>                                           98,065
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,410,984
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,806
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,152,880)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,152,880)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,152,880)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.32)
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. George Thomas WILKERSON.

No. 170A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 16, 2007.

Andrew M. Gregson, Assistant District Attorney, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th day of May 2007 by Defendant for Extension of Time for Court Reporter to Prepare Transcript:

"Motion Allowed. Court reporter shall have up to and including the 21st day of June 2007 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel. By order of the Court in conference this the 16th day of May 2007."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          18,579
<SECURITIES>                                    20,742
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,949
<ALLOWANCES>                                       216
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,058
<PP&E>                                           4,801
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,519
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,334
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,746
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,561)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,519
<SALES>                                         14,210
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,210
<CGS>                                              885
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      885
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,034
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,645
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,719
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,926
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,926
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.20
        

</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 130307 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130307 COA: 254861 Macomb CC: 2 003-002408-FC SHANE SWINDALL CHAMBERS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 17, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0522 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2006

Clerk
IN RE L.H.

No. COA07-496.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 21, 2007.

Certification Date September 10, 2007.

Appeal from Wake (06JA137, 06JA138).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Steven Wayne Fisher v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-15-00339-CR

Trial court case number: 1428579

Trial court: 263rd District Court of Harris County

Appellant has filed a motion to abate this appeal for the trial court to issue a corrected 

Certification of the Defendant’s Right to Appeal indicating that the underlying case is not a plea 

bargain case and the defendant has the right to appeal. Appellant notes that the clerk’s record 

contains a January 7, 2015 Certification stating that the case was a plea bargain case and the 

defendant does not have the right to appeal. But the notice of appeal on file with this Court attaches 

a corrected Certification issued on the same day striking its prior statement and stating that the 

case “is not a plea bargain case, and the defendant has the right to appeal.” Accordingly, because 

a corrected Certification has been issued with the statement requested by appellant, the motion to 

abate is dismissed as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

Acting individually

Date: February 14, 2017
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 Knight Transportation, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kevin P. Knight, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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:





(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.





May
      10, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      Kevin P. KnightKevin
      P. KnightChief
      Executive Officer








A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Knight Transportation, Inc. and will be retained by Knight
Transportation, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.




Back to Form
10-Q
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BALWINDER KAUR,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72020

Agency No. A097-581-479

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 24, 2013** 

Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Balwinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding

of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

SEP 30 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-72020

substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-

85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and

remand for further proceedings. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even though

Kaur established past persecution on account of an imputed political opinion, her

presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution was rebutted by evidence

of changed country conditions in India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A); see

also Gonzales-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999-1000 (9th Cir. 2003)

(noting that BIA has expertise to construe country reports and determine whether

country conditions have changed sufficiently to rebut a presumption of future

persecution). The agency rationally construed the evidence in the record and

provided a sufficiently individualized analysis of Kaur’s future fear. Id. 

Because Kaur has not established a well-founded fear of persecution, she

necessarily cannot meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. 

See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). 

However, in assessing humanitarian asylum, the agency failed to address

Kaur’s argument that she may be eligible due to “other serious harm” under 8

C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(B). Thus, we remand for further proceedings on this

issue. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); Hanna v.
3 08-72020

Keisler, 506 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir. 2007) (remanding for further proceedings

where agency did not consider both statutory provisions for humanitarian asylum);

see also Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (BIA is not

free to ignore arguments made by applicant).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, GRANTED in part;

REMANDED.
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION
  (i)
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2008 to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and(ii)
    
    that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Hansen Medical, Inc.
  / S / Steven M. Van DickVice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 99.2

			Report of Independent Accountants


Fleet Bank (RI), National Association ("Fleet"), Transferor and Servicer


We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management
Report, that Fleet maintained compliance, as Servicer, with Article III,
subsection 3.4(c) and section 4.1 of the Second Amended and Restated Master
Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 18, 2003 (the "Agreement"),
between Fleet Bank (RI), National Association, as Transferor and Servicer, and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Trustee, for the period November 18, 2003 through
February 29, 2004.  Management is responsible for Fleet's compliance with those
requirements.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion about Fleet's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about Fleet's
compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our opinion does not provide a
legal determination on Fleet's compliance with specified requirements.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Fleet complied with the requirements
of the aforementioned Agreement during the period November 18, 2003 through
February 29, 2004 is fairly stated, in all material respects.



/s/PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
-----------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


New York, New York
May 19, 2004
Claude QUEEN, Employee v. PENSKE CORPORATION, Employer and Kemper c/o Gallagher Bassett, Carrier.

No. 15P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Joy H. Brewer, Cary, for Penske Corporation.

Mark T. Sumwalt, Vernon Sumwalt, Charlotte, for Claude Queen.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of January 2006 by Defendant (Penske Corporation) 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 5th day of October 2006."
Exhibit 31 (b)
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
      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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and
the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
    August
10, 2009/s/ John A. MarazzaChief Financial Officer
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 799/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 799/2013 of 21 August 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 799/2013                     

# of 21 August 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 21 August 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.