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


CERTIFICATION





I,
      Ronald
      L. Wilder, the principal executive and financial officer, of Titan Technologies,
      Inc., certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Titan Technologies, Inc.,
      SEC file
      No.
      0-25024, for the quarter ended April 30, 2007.





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, is not
      misleading with respect dot 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.
      I am
      responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
      (as defined in Exchange Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant and
      have:





a)
      Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
      information relating to the registrant is made known to me by others within
      this
      entity, particularly during the period in which this report is
      prepared.





b)
      Omitted





c)
      Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness
      of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
      by the report based on such evaluation; and





d)
      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 that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially
      affect the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;





5.
      I have
      disclosed, based on my 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 reasonable likely to
      adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize an
      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 controls over financial
      reporting; and





Date:
       June 4, 2007





__ /s/
      Ronald L. Wilder ____________


Ronald
      L.
      Wilder, Principal Executive


and
      Financial Officer








There
      are
      no other certifying officers.
# C_2008209EN.01007001.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/70

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 April 2008 — Longinidis v Cedefop

(Case F-74/06) (1)

1

(Staff case - Members of the temporary staff - Reassignment - Appeals Committee - Composition and internal rules of procedure - Unfair behaviour - Dismissal - Statement of reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers)

(2008/C 209/127)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Pavlos Longinidis (Panorama, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (represented by: M. Fuchs, Agent, and P. Anestis, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

First, annulment of the decision of the Directorate of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) of 30 November 2005 terminating the applicant's indefinite term contract along with a series of decisions concerning inter alia Cedefop's Appeals Committee and, second, a claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as partly inadmissible and partly unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as partly inadmissible and partly unfounded;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006, p. 15.

1

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

The Board of Directors
IRI International Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement 
(No. 333-40525) on Form S-8 of IRI International Corporation of our report 
dated March 18, 1999, relating to the consolidated financial statements of IRI 
International Corporation as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and the related 
statement of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the years 
ended December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the nine months ended December 31, 1996, 
which report appears in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of IRI 
International Corporation.



                                                      KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas 
March 31, 1999
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6495

M. RODNEY E. JONES, a/k/a Rodney E. Jones,

a/k/a Rodney M. Jones,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 versus

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;

JON E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina

Department of Corrections; STATE OF SOUTH

CAROLINA; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney

General of South Carolina,

 Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CA-03-2358-3)

Submitted: February 25, 2005 Decided: April 1, 2005

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

M. Rodney E. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. David Michael Tatarsky, SOUTH

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

M. Rodney E. Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR v. Robert L. SCOTT, Attorney.

No. 250P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Robert L. Scott, for Scott, Robert L.

David R. Johnson, Deputy Counsel, for The NC State Bar.

Katherine Jean, Raleigh, for The NC State Bar.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 21st of July 2015 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 Plaintiff, 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 28th of January 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st of July 2015 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 28th of January 2016."
STATE of North Carolina v. Willie James WOODS, Defendant.

No. COA15-915.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported 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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Ravalli County Resource Advisory Committee will be meeting to assign monitors on 2005 projects and hold a short public forum (question and answer session). The meeting is being held pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 200 (Pub. L. 106-393). The meeting is open to the public.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on September 27, 2005, 6:30 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

                        The meeting will be held at the Ravalli County Administration Building, 215 S. 4th Street, Hamilton, Montana. Send written comments to Daniel G. Ritter, District Ranger, Stevensville Ranger District, 88 Main Street, Stevensville, MT 59870, by facsimile (406) 777-7423, or electronically to                         *dritter@fs.fed.us.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Daniel G. Ritter, Stevensville District Ranger and Designated Federal Officer, Phone: (406) 777-5461.

Dated: September 12, 2005.

David T. Bull,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 05-18533 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
# CE2004078EN.01078001.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/780 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/780

---

(2004/C 78 E/0830)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3101/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   EMU referendum and location of agencies

Subject:

One of the arguments deployed in Sweden's EMU debate was that, if the Swedish people voted no in the referendum, Sweden's chances of being considered as a location for EU agencies, e.g. for the management of chemicals, would be diminished.

Now that the Swedish people have voted no to the single currency of the euro, does the Council consider that Sweden's chances of being considered as a location for an EU agency have worsened?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

(4 March 2004)

The Council has not discussed the issue raised by the Honourable Member.

---
STATE v. Kalvin Michael SMITH.

No. 85P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 24, 2016.

James E. Coleman, Jr., Attorney, For Smith, Kalvin Michael.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of March 2016 by State of NC for Extension of Time to Respond to Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of March 2016."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 7th of April 2016 to Respond to Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
In the Matter of J.P.

No. COA15-677.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
STATE v. Leonard HARDY.

No. 260P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 30, 2015.

Hannah Love, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Hardy, Leonard.

Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Mr. C. Branson Vickery, III, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of July 2015 by Defendant to Dissolve Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of July 2015."
Exhibit 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT






Board of Directors
Radica Games Limited


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
33-86960,  333-07000 and 333-59737 on Form S-8, and  Registration  Statement No.
333-07526 on Form F-3 of Radica Games  Limited of our report dated  December 15,
1998,  appearing in this Annual  Report on Form 20-F of Radica Games Limited for
the year ended October 31, 1998.







/S/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

HONG KONG

December 15, 1998
# C_2005143EN.01004001.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/40

---

Action brought on 11 April 2005 by the Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-141/05)

(2005/C 143/75)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 2005 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V., Rosbach v.d.H. (Germany), represented by H. Kaltenecker, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

| — | annul the decision of the Commission of 14 February 2005 by which it denied the applicant unrestricted access to the Commission's file in relation to Contract LIEN 97-2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission of 14 February 2005 by which it denied the applicant unrestricted access to the Commission's file in relation to Contract LIEN 97-2011;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested document the Commission denied the applicant unrestricted access to the European Commission's file relating to Contract LIEN 97-2011 by reference to Article 4(1)(b) and the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of the Transparency Regulation (1) and to the Data Protection Regulation (2).

1

2

The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 4(3) of the Transparency Regulation. The applicant is of the opinion that the reasons given by the European Commission for its refusal to grant unrestricted access to the file concerning Contract LIEN 97-2011, namely that unrestricted access to the file would impair the decision-making process, are invalid. The applicant further contends that there is public interest in the disclosure of the documents in question. The applicant also questions the applicability of Article 4(1)(b) of the Transparency Regulation.

The applicant complains furthermore of the refusal to grant unrestricted access to the file by reference to the Data Protection Regulation.

In addition, the applicant submits that the European Commission's action is arbitrary.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

1

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

2

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Raul OLIVEROS.

No. 80P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Adrian Dellinger, Associate Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Saul Oliveros, for Oliveros, Raul.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 8th of March 2016 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:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JEFFREY PETER THOMPSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 848 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12th day of August, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
In re GUTOWSKI.

No. 280P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 25, 2015.

Michael D. Gutowski, Waxhaw, for Gutowski, Michael D., et al.

Mary Anne Gutowski, for Gutowski, Mary Anne.

Emily F. Lowder, Michael T. Hosmer, Charlotte, Jeremy B. Wilkins, for Bank of America, N.A.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of August 2015 by Respondents for Stay of Foreclosure Sale:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of August 2015."
# C_2023252EN.01005201.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/52

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 9 June 2023 — FFPE section Conseil v Council

(Case T-179/23 R)

(Interim relief - Law governing the institutions - Trade union or professional associations (OSPs) - Agreement concluded between the Council and the OSPs of the General Secretariat of the Council - Procedure for verifying the criteria for the recognition and the representativeness of the OSPs - Suspension of rights flowing from the agreement of an OSP not reaching the threshold of representativeness - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2023/C 252/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Fédération de la fonction publique européenne section Conseil (FFPE section Conseil) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Champetier and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and I. Demoulin, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of operation of the Council of the European Union’s note of 3 April 2023 (ORG.1.F/7053/23) on the outcome of the second verification procedure of the FFPE.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
1554.

#### WALL LUMBER CO. *v.*LOTT-LEWIS CO.

There was no error, under the particular circumstances of the ease as they were admitted in open court to exist, in the refusal of the judge to allow the claimants to move to quash the plaintiff’s fl. fa. or to dismiss the levy. It further appearing that the claimants were not entitled to any standing in court, the judge did not err in dismissing their claim.

Levy and claim, from city court of Nashville — Judge Peeples. October 24, 1908.

Submitted January 27,

Decided February 9, 1909.

*Smith & Foy, J. J. Murray, J. B. Murrow,*for plaintiff in error.

*James FL. Price, Hendricks & Christian,*contra.

Powell, J.

A lien in favor of Lott-Lewis Company, for supplies furnished to a sawmill, was levied on certain lumber. The property was brought to sale under what is commonly known as a “short order.” The claimants, the Wall Lumber Company, were present at this sale and bought the lumber sold thereat. Neither at the time of the levy nor at the time of the sale did they have any lien upon the property, but, after the sale was made, they filed a claim to the proceeds. No counter-affidavit to the lien foreclosure was filed by the defendants or by any creditor. When the claim case was called for trial, the claimants" moved to dismiss the levy and to quash the lien fi. fa., for several alleged defects appearing on the fi. fa. It has been repeatedly held that the claimant can not move to quash the fi. fa., though generally he can move to dismiss the levy for defects appearing on the fi. fa. In the present case, however, there was no levy to dismiss; it had already become functus by the sale. These claimants, having bid upon the property at the sale, were absolutely estopped from denying the -validity of the sale. *Mock*v. *Stuckey,*96 *Ga.*187 (23 S. E. 307).

Money arising from a sale of property made under an execution is the property of the defendant, and is subject to distribution to persons holding liens against him, whether he owned the property which was brought to sale or not. The purchaser at the sale acquires just the title which the defendant had,-^no more, no less,— and, under the doctrine of caveat emptor, must stand the loss if the defendant had no title. The money arising from, the sale is treated as the defendant’s. It being admitted that the claimants had no lien against the defendant or the property, the court properly dismissed their claim to the fund. *Judgment affirmed’.*
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MOSES JACK POPP,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00298-CR

Appeal from the

210th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20180D02517)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until January 15, 2021. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Robin Norris, the Appellant’s attorney, prepare the 

Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before January 15, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of December, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.