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



CERTIFICATION OF
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
INN OF THE MOUNTAIN GODS RESORT AND CASINO
      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 quarterly report
is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Brian D. ParrishBy:     Brian D. ParrishTitle:
    Chief Operating Officer and Management
Board Member (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

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;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
   statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
   make the statements made, and in light of the circumstances under which such
   statements were made, is not misleading with respect to the period covered by
   this quarterly report.

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
   information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report.

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
   procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) 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 us
           by others within this entity, particularly during the period in
           which this quarterly report is being prepared.

        b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
           and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date
           of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date") and

        c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the
           effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my
           evaluations as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
   auditors and board" of directors:

        a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
           controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
           record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
           identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
           internal controls;

        b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
           employees who" have a significant role in the registrant's internal
           controls; and

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
   significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
   significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most
   recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
   significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: December 12, 2003


                            Ronald L. Wilder
                            --------------------------------------
                            Ronald L. Wilder,  principal executive
                            and financial officer


There are no other certifying officers.
#### Safespan Platform Systems, Inc., Appellant, v State Insurance Fund, Respondent.

(Claim No. 105386.)

[801 NYS2d 215]

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Renee Forgensi Minarik, J.), entered July 16, 2004. The order denied claimant’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at the Court of Claims. Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Smith, Pine and Hayes, JJ.
# C_2009069EN.01001101.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/11

---

Order of the Court of 11 September 2008 — Coats Holdings Ltd, J & P Coats Ltd v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-468/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Fine - Claim seeking reduction of the fine set by the Court of First Instance)

(2009/C 69/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Coats Holdings Ltd, J & P Coats Ltd (represented by: W. Sibree and C. Jeffs, Solicitors)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and K. Mojzesovicz, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment delivered by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance on 12 September 2007 in Case T-36/05 Coats Holdings Ltd and J & P Coats Ltd v Commission of the EC by which the Court partly annulled Commission Decision C(2004) 4221 final of 26 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/F-1/38.338 — PO/Needles) concerning market sharing agreements in respect of haberdashery products and geographic market sharing agreements, and set the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants at EUR 20 million — Application for the fine to be reduced

Coats Holdings Ltd and J & P Coats Ltd

Commission of the EC

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Coats Holdings Ltd and J & P Coats Ltd are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Coats Holdings Ltd and J & P Coats Ltd are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.

1

---
# C_2008008EN.01000601.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/6

---

Action brought on 22 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-469/07)

(2008/C 8/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Kraemer, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to communicate the Community design courts to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 80(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to communicate the Community design courts to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 80(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (1);

1

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not fulfilled the obligation laid down in Article 80(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, under which each Member State is to communicate to the Commission not later than 6 March 2005 a list of Community design courts, indicating their names and their territorial jurisdiction.

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1.

1

---
FRANK YU



CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON







To:

US Securities and Exchange Commission



I, Frank Yu do hereby consent to (i) the incorporation by reference of the following document(s) into the annual information form (the AIF) of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Issuer) dated March 22, 2006 to be filed with certain Canadian securities commissions and the annual report on Form 40-F (the 40-F) of the Issuer to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection therewith, and (ii) the inclusion of any extracts from or summary of such document(s) in the AIF and the 40-F:

1.  Bisha Property, Gash-Barka District, Eritrea 43-101 Technical Report and Preliminary Assessment dated December 22, 2005

(collectively, the Technical Report)

I also certify that I have read the written disclosure being filed and that it fairly and accurately represents the information in the technical report that supports the written disclosure in the AIF and the 40-F dated March 22, 2006 of Nevsun Resources Ltd.



Dated this22 day of March, 2006.

signed

_______________________
Frank Yu

[Seal or Stamp]
# C_2008301EN.01003702.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/37

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2008 — Grupa Ożarów v Commision

(Case T-197/07) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - National allocation plan in respect of emission allowances for Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 - Decision by the Commission not to raise objections subject to certain conditions - Competence of Member States in the individual allocation of emission allowances - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 301/63)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Grupa Ożarów S.A. (Karsy, Poland) (represented by: P.K. Rosiak and F. Puel, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commision of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and K. Herrmann)

Defendant:

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Republic of Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Grupa Ożarów S.A. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Grupa Ożarów S.A. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

1

---
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 2 July 2008 – Stradivarius España v OHIM – Ricci (Stradivari 1715)**

**(Case T-340/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark Stradivari 1715 – Earlier Community figurative Stradivarius trade marks – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 51-57, 60-61)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006 (Case R 1024/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Stradivarius España, SA and Cristina Ricci. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Cristina Ricci |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark Stradivari 1715 for goods in Classes 14, 16 and 18 – Application No 2269256 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Stradivarius España, SA |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Community figurative mark Stradivarius for goods in Classes 14, 16 (No 1246164) and 18 (No 506469) |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Stradivarius España, SA to pay the costs. |
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50896

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DENISE LUJAN-SAUCEDA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

August 25, 1999

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Denise Lujan-Sauceda pleaded guilty to possession

with intent to distribute for carrying over 80 pounds of marijuana

in her car. Her initial presentence report included a three-level

reduction for a cceptance of responsibility. Lujan-Sauceda then

failed to appear at her sentencing hearing, and a warrant was

issued for her arrest. She later turned herself in. At her second

sentencing hearing, her offense level was revised to remove the

three-level reduction and to include a two-level upward adjustment

for obstruction of justice. Lujan-Sauceda argues on appeal that

the district court erred in denying offense level reductions for

acceptance of responsibility and for a minor or minimal role in the

offense.

The denied requested reduction for acceptance of

responsibility, addressed in section 3E1.1 of the Sentencing2

Gui delines, results from the obstruction of justice adjustment.

The Comment t o section 3E1.1 notes, “Conduct resulting in an

enhancement under §3C1.1 [Obstructing or Impeding the

Administration of Justice] ordinarily indicates that the defendant

has not a ccepted responsibility for his criminal conduct. There

may, however, be extraordinary cases in which adjustments under

both §§3C1.1 and 3E1.1 may apply.” § 3E1.1 n.4. In this case,

Lujan-Sauceda’s eventual voluntary surrender does not present such

an extraordinary circumstance.

The district court did not err in denying Lujan-Sauceda a

downward adjustment for a minimal or minor role in the offense.

Lujan-Sauceda was the only actor in her offense and the court used

only the drugs she was transporting in ca lculating her sentence.

Appellant’s status as a first-time offender and her claims to be a

courier do not require a different result.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3815 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3815

    To repeal the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2014

  Mr. Marino introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on 
the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To repeal the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF BIGGERT-WATERS FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM ACT OF 2012.

    Effective as of the enactment of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance 
Reform Act of 2012 (title II of division F of Public Law 112-141; 126 
Stat. 916), such Act (other than section 100203 (126 Stat. 916)) is 
repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act 
(other than by such section 100203) are restored or revived as if such 
Act had not been enacted.

SEC. 2. BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT.

    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House of 
Representatives, as long as such statement has been submitted prior to 
the vote on passage of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 23

- 00300

- CR

EX PARTE Jose Pedro AGUILLEN

- ARTEAGA

Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Beth Watkins , Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 19, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On March 30, 2023 , relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Relator also filed a

motion for temporary stay of the underlying proceedings pending final resolution of the petition

for writ of mandamus. After considering the petition , real party in interest’s response, and th is

r ecord, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for

writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). Relator’s motion for temporary stay is

denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This p roceeding arises out of Cause No. 30868 , styled State of Texas v. Jose Pedro Aguillen

- Arteaga , pending in the

County Court

, Maverick County, Texas, the Honorable Susan D. Reed presiding.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 27, 2017

s1218 

# Order

Clerk December 27, 2017

155313

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 155313

COA: 334462

Manistee CC: 12

- 004219

- FC

PAUL JOSEPH HARD

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 21 , 2016

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

W ILDER , J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
Chamberlain v. N.C. Department of Public Safety, et al

241P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Robert S. Chamberlain, for Chamberlain, Robert Samuel.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of June 2016 by Petitioner for Petition for Court Order to Receive Medical Care for Pretrial Detainees and Put a Stop to Pretrial Detainees Sick Calls Going Unanswered:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."

Ervin, J. recused
# C_2009267EN.01005402.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/54

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Hipp & Co v OHIM — Laboratoris Ordesa (Bebimil)

(Case T-221/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark Bebimil - Earlier Community and national word marks BLEMIL - Earlier national word mark BLEMIL 1 - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Likelihood of confusion)

2009/C 267/92

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hipp & Co KG (Sachseln, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Latinien and A. Folliard-Mongiural, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Laboratoris Ordesa, SL (Sant Boi de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: R. Thierie and E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2006 (Case R 571/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ordesa, SL and Hipp & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Hipp & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Hipp & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Terraine Sanchez BYERS.

No. 69P06-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Terraine S. Byers, for Byers, Terraine Sanchez.

Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*740*AMENDED ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 25th of January 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order 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 17th of March 2016."

ERVIN, J., recused.