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 January 31, 2005

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 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.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act 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 being 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;
<PAGE>

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 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
          controls over financial reporting.



Date:  March 2, 2005

                                /s/ Ronald L. Wilder
                                ---------------------------------------
                                Ronald L. Wilder,  Principal
                                Executive and Financial Officer


                     There are no other certifying officers.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: LEO M. LOZANO ,

Relator.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-08-00236-CR

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Relator Leo Lozano seeks a second writ of mandamus contending he has been denied his

“prison gate money” in the amount of one hundred dollars. See In Re Lozano, No. 08-08-00060-

CR, 2008 WL 538392 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2008, orig. proceeding). He now requests that this

Court issue a writ of mandamus ordering the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to issue him

$100, “prison gate money” which he claims he was not provided when he was released from the

Institutional Division on November 21, 2007.

This Court does not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice. See TEX.GOV’T.CODE ANN. § 22.221(a)(Vernon 2004). 

Therefore, mandamus relief is denied.

September 11, 2008

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Trans  Energy,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
William F.  Woodburn , Principal  Accounting  Officer of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  Sec.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to Sec.  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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 result of operations of the
     Company.


/s/   WILLIAM F. WOODBURN
-------------------------------------
William F. Woodburn
Principal Accounting Officer
April 27, 2005

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                                   1,824
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              361
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         2,185
<PP&E>                                                     554
<DEPRECIATION>                                             114
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           2,736
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    1,790
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                    52
<OTHER-SE>                                                 802
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             2,736
<SALES>                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         7,612
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            7,387
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            225
<INCOME-TAX>                                                90
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        135
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                               135
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              .03


        

</TABLE>
# C_2011145EN.01002102.xml

| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Tomkins v Commission

(Case T-382/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement - Duration of the infringement)

2011/C 145/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tomkins plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Soames, S. Jordan, Solicitors, and J. Joshua, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and V. Bottka, acting as Agents, and by S. Kinsella and K. Daly, Solicitors)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings), and also for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings) in so far as it relates to the period from 31 December 1988 to 29 October 1993 with respect to Tomkins plc; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings) in so far as it relates to the period from 31 December 1988 to 29 October 1993 with respect to Tomkins plc;

| 2. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Tomkins plc under Article 2(h) of Decision C(2006) 4180 at EUR 4,25 million, in respect of which it is jointly and severally liable with Pegler Ltd as to EUR 3,4 million; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Tomkins plc under Article 2(h) of Decision C(2006) 4180 at EUR 4,25 million, in respect of which it is jointly and severally liable with Pegler Ltd as to EUR 3,4 million;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
In the Matter of K.W.

No. COA15-435.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 3, 2015.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Accountants' Consent






The Board of Directors
Harbor Federal Bancorp, Inc.




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of Harbor Federal Bancorp, Inc. of our
report dated May 7, 1999, relating to the consolidated
statements of financial condition of Harbor Federal Bancorp,
Inc. and subsidiary as of March 31, 1999 and 1998, and the
related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive
income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended March 31, 1999 which report
is incorporated by reference in the March 31, 1999 annual report
on Form 10-KSB of Harbor Federal Bancorp, Inc.





                                  /s/ KPMG LLP



Baltimore, Maryland
June 21, 1999
# C_2009267EN.01005601.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/56

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Zero Industry v OHIM — zero Germany (zerorh+)

(Case T-400/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community mark zerorh+ - Earlier national figurative and word marks zero - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity between products - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2009/C 267/95

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Zero Industry Srl (Mariano Comense, Italy) (represented by: M. Rapisardi and N. Colombo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: zero Germany GmbH & Co. KG, formerly zero International Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: W.-D. Kuntze, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2006 (Case R 958/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between zero Germany GmbH & Co. KG and Zero Industry Srl.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Zero Industry Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Zero Industry Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4477

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN ELLERBE, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(4:06-cr-00685-TLW)

Submitted: August 8, 2008 Decided: August 27, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James T. McBratney, Jr., MCBRATNEY LAW FIRM, P.A., Florence, South

Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States

Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; William E. Day, II, Carrie A.

Fisher, Assistant United States Attorneys, Florence, South

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

John Ellerbe pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea

agreement, to theft by aiding and abetting a bank employee, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 656 (2000), and knowingly making a

false statement to a bank in connection with an application for an

automobile loan, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 (2000). The

district court sentenced Ellerbe to twenty-eight months

imprisonment and ordered him to pay $70,798.94 in restitution,

payable in monthly payments of $1200, beginning upon his release

from prison. 

Ellerbe appeals, claiming that the district court failed

to adequately consider his ability to pay when it determined the

restitution payment schedule, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2)

(2000). Because he did not object at sentencing, Ellerbe’s claim

is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.

725, 732-34 (1993); United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547 (4th

Cir. 2005). Because the record establishes that the district court

adequately considered the factors as required under § 3664(f)(2),

we conclude that Ellerbe cannot show error, let alone plain error,

in the district court’s restitution order. See United States v.

Karam, 201 F.3d 320, 330 (4th Cir. 2000) (district court’s adoption

of presentence report that contained sufficient facts to support

restitution order avoided plain error). Accordingly, we affirm.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
 3 

contentions are adequately addressed in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
STATE of North Carolina v. Kadeem KIRK.

No. 40P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Mark Montgomery, for Kirk, Kadeem.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th of February 2016 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:

> *895"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
# CE2004078EN.01049801.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/498 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/498

---

(2004/C 78 E/0518)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3232/03

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   Updated budget figures

Subject:

Can the Commission supply the figures for the following:

| — | the financial perspective ceilings for the years 1988 to 2003 inclusive; |
| --- | --- |

—

the financial perspective ceilings for the years 1988 to 2003 inclusive;

| — | the own resources ceilings expressed in euros, for the same period; |
| --- | --- |

—

the own resources ceilings expressed in euros, for the same period;

| — | and the budget outturn for commitment and payment appropriations for the financial years 1988 to 2002 inclusive? |
| --- | --- |

—

and the budget outturn for commitment and payment appropriations for the financial years 1988 to 2002 inclusive?

These figures should:

| — | be updated to reflect 2004 prices; |
| --- | --- |

—

be updated to reflect 2004 prices;

| — | include, for each figure, for each year, all the changes made to the initial figure, such as technical adjustments, amendments, revisions and mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument, with the exception of adjustments connected with implementation of heading 2. |
| --- | --- |

—

include, for each figure, for each year, all the changes made to the initial figure, such as technical adjustments, amendments, revisions and mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument, with the exception of adjustments connected with implementation of heading 2.

Can it also list all the changes made to each financial perspective since 1988, taking the now defunct annual publication ‘The Community Budget: The Facts in Figures’ as a model for this?

Supplementary answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

(16 January 2004)

The figures requested by the Honourable Member for the period 1988-2003 are given in the tables which are being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

---
# C_2010301EN.01002202.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — TF1 v European Commission

(Case T-193/06) (1)

1

(State aid - Aid schemes for cinematographic and audiovisual production - Decision not to raise objections - Actions for annulment - Absence of any significant effect on the competitive position - Inadmissibility)

2010/C 301/34

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: J. P. Hordies and C. Smits, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, T. Scharf and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and L. Butel, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 832 Final of 22 March 2006 relating to support measures for the cinema and audiovisual industry in France (State aid NN 84/2004 and N 95/2004 — France, Aid schemes for the film and audiovisual industry)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.

1

---
SCPW-23-0000061 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI 

________________________________________________________________ 

DONALD B. MARKS, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

 THE HONORABLE TRISH K. MORIKAWA, 

Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, 

State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent Judge, 

and 

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, 

Respondent. 

________________________________________________________________ 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

(CASE NO. 1CPN-21-0000002) 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, and Eddins, JJ., 

Circuit Judge Crabtree and Circuit Judge Kawashima, 

assigned by reason of vacancies) 

 Upon consideration of the renewed petition filed on October 

24, 2023, the answer filed on December 7, 2023, and the record, 

the Respondent Judge filed findings of fact, conclusions of law, 

and an order denying Petitioner’s Hawaiʻi Rules of Penal 

Procedure Rule 40 petition without a hearing. 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-23-0000061

13-DEC-2023

08:11 AM

Dkt. 16 ODDP
2

It is ordered that the renewed petition is dismissed as 

moot.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, December 13, 2023.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Jeffrey P. Crabtree

/s/ James S. Kawashima
Exhibit 4.2

LICENCE NO: STS 462

INDEPENDENT TELEVISION COMMISSION
BROADCASTING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED)

LICENCE GRANTED TO VIASAT BROADCASTING UK LIMITED TO PROVIDE A SATELLITE TELEVISION SERVICE UNDER PART I OF THE BROADCASTING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED)

THE LICENCE

1.     The
Independent Television Commission (the "Commission") in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Part I of the Broadcasting Act 1990 as amended by the Broadcasting
Act 1996 hereby grants to Viasat Broadcasting UK Limited (the "Licensee") a licence (the "Licence") for the term of ten years and subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule, to provide the
satellite television service specified in the Annex (the "Licensed Service").

2.     The
Licence shall come into force on 3 October 2001.

|SIGNED FOR THE COMMISSION BY |  | /s/ [illegible] |  | Dated 26 September 2001
|---------------------------- |  | --------------- |  | -----------------------

---

ANNEX TO LICENCE NO: STS 462

The Licensed Service

The service known as TV3 Denmark and described in the application to the Commission dated 14 September 2001.

---

LICENCE NO: NDS181

INDEPENDENT TELEVISION COMMISSION

BROADCASTING ACT 1990

LICENCE GRANTED TO TV6 BROADCASTING GROUP LIMITED TO PROVIDE A NON-DOMESTIC SATELLITE SERVICE UNDER PART I OF THE BROADCASTING ACT 1990

THE LICENCE

|SIGNED FOR THE COMMISSION BY |  | /s/ [illegible] |  | Dated 3 June 1997
|---------------------------- |  | --------------- |  | -----------------

---

ANNEX TO LICENCE NO. NDS181

The Licensed Service

The service known as the TV6 channel and described in the application to the Commission dated 12 May 1997.

---