alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Robert E. Wheaton, President and Chief Executive Officer of StarBuffet, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Star Buffet, Inc.;

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

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

4.  The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and have:

a)             designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b)            [Paragraphomitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];

c)             evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisannual report based on such evaluation; and

d)            disclosedin this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)             allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)            Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| April 25, 2007 | /s/ Robert E. Wheaton    |   |
|----------------|--------------------------|--------|
|           | Robert E.  Wheaton       |   |
|           | President and            |   |
|           | Chief Executive  Officer |   |

 

----
United States Court of A ppeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
April 19, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 04-51312

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.
ROBERTO AGUIRRE-VILLA also known as, Jose Hernandez
Defendant - Appellant

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (04-CR-687)

---------------------

Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

IT IS ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate the

sentence is granted.

IT IS FURTHE R ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to

remand case to the United States District Court for the Western

District of Texas, El Paso Division, for resentencing is granted.

______________

*Pursuant to 5 th Cir. 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 Cir. R. 47.5.4.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to

extend time to file appellee’s brief until 14 days from the

Court’s denial of appellee’s motion to vacate and remand is moot.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          32,669
<SECURITIES>                                23,456,935
<RECEIVABLES>                                  595,722
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,085,326
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          621,892
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,463,434
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,085,326
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,058,401
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   66,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                991,701
<INCOME-TAX>                                   991,701
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            991,701
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   991,701
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 303 

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

324 Main Street in Grambling, Louisiana, as the ‘‘Coach Eddie Robinson 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 16, 2007 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 324 Main Street in Grambling, Louisiana, 

as the ‘‘Coach Eddie Robinson Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COACH EDDIE ROBINSON POST OFFICE BUILD4 ING. 

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

6 Postal Service located at 324 Main Street in Grambling, 

7 Louisiana, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Coach 

8 Eddie Robinson Post Office Building’’. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•S 303 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Coach Eddie Robinson 

5 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Shelton McLAUGHLIN.

No. 648P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2007.

Roderick S. McLaughlin, pro se.

Jay L. Osborne, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 27th day of December 2006 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 23rd day of August 2007."

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 27th day of December 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd day of August 2007."
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3332 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to provide comprehensive health care to children of Vietnam 

veterans born with Spina Bifida, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 24 (legislative day, JULY 23), 2008 

Mr. BAYH (for himself and Mr. LUGAR) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide comprehensive 

health care to children of Vietnam veterans born with 

Spina Bifida, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Spina Bifida Health 

5 Care Program Expansion Act’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 3332 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROVISION OF COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE BY 

2 SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO CHIL3 DREN OF VIETNAM VETERANS BORN WITH 

4 SPINA BIFIDA. 

5 (a) PROVISION OF COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH

6 CARE.—Section 1803(a) of title 38, United States Code, 

7 is amended by striking ‘‘such health care as the Secretary 

8 determines is needed by the child for the spina bifida or 

9 any disability that is associated with such condition’’ and 

10 inserting ‘‘health care under this section’’. 

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

12 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to care furnished 

13 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund IX, L.P. (the Registrant) for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the
undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General
Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ LEO F. WELLS, III  
| |  | Leo F. Wells, III      
| |  | Chief Executive Officer
| |  | August 8, 2008         



| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS
| |  | Douglas P. Williams    
| |  | Chief Financial Officer
| |  | August 8, 2008
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6357

NATHANIEL MURRAY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN STEPHAN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock 

Hill. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (0:18-cv-00960-TLW)

Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Murray, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Murray seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

Based on the arguments presented in his informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), and 

his failure to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation on one ground after 

receiving proper notice, see Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017), we

conclude that Murray has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 
3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of Lois Phillips, Appellant, v Suffolk County Board of Elections et al., Respondents, and Michael J. Caracciolo, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 225]

*510In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating Michael J. Caracciolo as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 13, 2005, for the nomination of the Conservative Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Assembly, First Assembly District, the petitioner appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated August 4, 2005, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Michael J. Caracciolo, the incumbent Suffolk County Legislator, First District, began circulating designating petitions to become the candidate of the Republican Party on June 7, 2005, the Independence Party on June 16, 2005, and the Conservative Party on June 16, 2005, for the nomination of those parties for that public office. On June 16, 2005, the public office of Member of the Assembly, First Assembly District, became vacant, and on June 23, 2005, the State Board of Elections certified that the vacancy would be filled in the regular election. Caracciolo then began circulating designating petitions to become the candidate of the Republican Party on June 25, 2005, the Independence Party on June 30, 2005, and the Conservative Party on July 5, 2005, for the nomination for the public office of Member of the Assembly, First Assembly District. Caracciolo continued to circulate the Suffolk County Legislator designating petitions, and on July 13, 2005, and July 14, 2005, respectively, filed both sets of designating petitions. On July 18, 2005, Caracciolo filed declinations for the Suffolk County Legislator nominations for all three parties.

“It is well settled that one may not simultaneously run for two public offices where one would be precluded from holding both offices at the same time” *(Matter of Lawrence v Spelman,*264 AD2d 455, 456 [1999]). Where a candidate intentionally defrauds the electorate by circulating designating petitions for incompatible offices, absent acceptable excuse or justification, his or her designating petitions should fail entirely *(see Matter of Lutfy v Gangemi,*35 NY2d 179 [1974]). However, unlike the candidates in *Lutfy,*Caracciolo had no such intent. His decision to run for the Assembly seat, and the subsequent overlap in circulating designating petitions, occurred as a result of the unexpected vacancy, not as a result of fraud. Also, given the late date on which the vacancy was certified, the parties had little time to circulate designating petitions for a new candidate for *511Suffolk County Legislator and voters might have been disenfranchised if Caracciolo was required to stop circulating the designating petitions for that office *(see Matter of Farbstein v Suchman,*26 NY2d 564 [1970]).

The parties’ remaining contentions do not require a different result. H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Ritter and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 99


                                  CERTIFICATION



To my knowledge,  this Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended  September 30,
2002 (the  "Report"),  fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information  contained in
this Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition
and results of operations of CKF Bancorp, Inc.



                                 By: /s/ John H. Stigall
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                     John H. Stigall
                                     President and Chief Executive Officer



                                 By: /s/ Russell M. Brooks
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                     Russell M. Brooks
                                     Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



Date:    November 13, 2002
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Annual Report of Kroll Inc. on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael G. Cherkasky, Chief
Executive Officer of Kroll Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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 Kroll Inc.


/s/  Michael G. Cherkasky
--------------------------------
Michael G. Cherkasky
Chief Executive Officer
March 15, 2004
STATE v. Timmy SPEIGHT.

No. 491PA04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2006.

Patricia A. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Margaret Creasy Ciardella, Hampstead, Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Speight.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th day of October 2006 by Attorney General to Strike Argument II of Defendant's Supplemental Brief:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of October 2006."
<PAGE>

TANISYS TECHNOLOGY, INC.                                          EXHIBIT 12.1


                    STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                     FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996


MONTH           SHARES OUTSTANDING AT MONTH END
------------    -------------------------------
Sept 96              15,978,537
Oct 96               15,978,537
Nov 96               16,070,773
Dec 96               16,626,655
                    -----------
4 month total        64,654,502

Weighted 
Average Shares       16,163,626

Net Loss            ($2,137,485)

Loss per Weighted
Average Shares            ($.13)
STATE v. POTEAT.

No. COA07-511.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 18, 2007.

Certification Date January 7, 2008.

Appeal from Rowan (00CRS13545, 00CRS13546, 00CRS13547, 00CRS13549).

Decision without published opinion. No error.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), the Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH), announces the establishment of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (Committee).

This Committee shall advise the Director, NIH; the Deputy director for Intramural Research, NIH; the Director, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM); and the Scientific Director, NCCAM, on the intramural research programs through periodic visits to the laboratories for assessment of the research in progress, the proposed research, and evaluation of the productivity and performance of tenured, tenure track and staff scientists and physicians.

The Committee will consist of eight members, including the Chair, appointed by the Director, NIH, from authorities knowledgeable about conventional and complementary and alternative medicine research in the fields of interest to NCCAM.

Duration of this committee is continuing unless formally determined by the Director, NIH, that termination would be in the best public interest.

Dated: August 17, 2005.

Elias A. Zerhouni,

Director, National Institutes of Health.

[FR Doc. 05-17252  Filed 8-30-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M