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



Exhibit 99.1

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 Viewpoint
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for
the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert E. Rice, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, in accordance with 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The Report to which this certification
    is attached as an exhibit, fully complies with the requirements
    of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934; and
|
| | (2) The information contained in the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.                            



| |     |                   
| | --- | ------------------
| | By: | /s/ ROBERT E. RICE

| |                                          
| | -----------------------------------------
| |                                          
| | Robert E. Rice                           
| | President and Chief Executive
    Officer

Dated: June 27, 2003
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors

Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.:

 

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-103962, 333-85426,333-57492 and 333-20363 on Forms S-8 of our reports dated April 13, 2005, relatingto the financial statements of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. and management’sreport on the effectiveness of Internal Controls for Financial Reporting (whichreport expresses an unqualified opinion on management’s assessment that theCompany’s internal control over financial reporting is not effective andexpresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting because of a material weakness), appearing inthe Annual Report on Form 10-K of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. forthe year ended January 29, 2005.

 
| /s/  Deloitte & Touche LLP |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
|                                |
| Baltimore,  Maryland                |
| April 13,  2005                |

 

1

----
Exhibit 31.2



Certifications



I, Edward Escudero, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Petro Stopping Centers, L.P.;



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, 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. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



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



(c) 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 reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of 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 reasonably 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 control
over financial reporting.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: July 7, 2005                   
|                                     
|/s/ Edward Escudero                  
|(Edward Escudero)                    
|Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136073 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136073 

 COA: 272547 

Kent CC: 06-000997-FC 

KEITH BURNELL DAVIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 29, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE in part the judgment of the Court of 

Appeals, and we REMAND this case to the Kent Circuit Court for reconsideration of 

scoring offense variable 10, MCL 777.40, in light of this Court’s decision in People v 

Cannon, 481 Mich 152 (2008). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because 

we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this 

Court. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

s0903 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

September 10, 2008 

 Clerk
EXHIBIT 23.1






INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statements No. 33-81718, 33-89474, 333-19777, 333-14799,
333-03877, 333-03881, 333-03677 and 333-02812 of C-Cube Microsystems
Inc. on Form S-8 of our reports dated January 21, 1998, appearing
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of C-Cube Microsystems Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 1997.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Jose, California
March 20, 1998
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6649

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

VERA ETTA BAKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District

Judge. (7:06-cr-00034-sgw-2)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 22, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vera Etta Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford,

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Vera Etta Baker appeals the district court’s order

denying her motion for a reduction of sentence filed pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we find the district court did

not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See United States

v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (motion under

§ 3582(c) “is subject to the discretion of the district court”);

United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 727 (4th Cir. 2000). Thus,

we affirm the district court’s order for the reasons stated there.

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.

AFFIRMED
NO. 07-07-0480-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

		______________________________

	IN RE ROB L. NEWBY, RELATOR

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

	Before us is the pro se petition for writ of mandamus filed by relator, Rob L. Newby.  Relator seeks an order compelling a ruling by the Honorable Stuart Messer, judge of the 100th judicial district court,1 on the following motions filed by relator in that court: (1) “Motion Requesting Issuance of Citation and Service of Process”; (2) “Motion to Recuse” (former judge of the 100th judicial district court, David McCoy); and (3) “Motion for Appointment of Counsel.” 

	A letter from Judge Messer to relator addresses each of these motions.  It states that relator’s motion to recuse Judge McCoy is moot as Judge McCoy is no longer the judge presiding over relator’s case; relator’s motion for court appointed counsel is denied; and by separate document the district clerk was ordered to forward specified documents of record to the attorney general.  The letter bears the file mark of the district clerk.  

	We first consider whether the letter of Judge Messer constitutes an order on relator’s pending motions.  In general, letters from the court to counsel are not the type of documents that constitute a judgment, decision, or order.  See Goff v. Tuchscherer, 627 S.W.2d 397, 398-99 (Tex. 1982) (issue was whether letter or subsequent order triggered appellate timetable).  But in Goff  the court’s letter directed counsel prepare and present an order reflecting his ruling on a plea of privilege under former venue practice.  Here, Judge Messer’s letter requires no further action memorializing his rulings.  Moreover, the letter contains the name and cause number of the case, the court’s diction is affirmative rather than anticipatory of rulings on relator’s motions,2 the letter bears a date, it was signed by the court, and was filed with the district clerk.  As such, it substantially complies with the requisites of a formal order on relator’s motions.  See Schaeffer Homes, Inc. v. Esterak, 792 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tex.App.–El Paso 1990, no writ) (distinguishing Goff on letter similar to that at bar).  All indications are that Judge Messer intended that the letter and the separate order to the district clerk constitute his orders on relator’s three motions.3  We, therefore, find Goff distinguishable from the matter at bar.  We conclude Judge Messer’s letter constitutes an order expressing his ruling on each of relator’s motions.4

	We now turn to relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.  Relator has asked us to compel Judge Messer to rule on his three motions.  Judge Messer has provided relator with an order expressing his rulings on the motions.  We, therefore, find relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is moot.  Without reaching the merits of the petition we dismiss it as moot.

	It is so ordered.

								Per Curiam
##### 



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 on Form 10-K of Winston Hotels, Inc. (the Company) for
the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph V. Green, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 the Company. /s/ Joseph V. Green
Joseph V. Green
Chief Financial Officer
March 16, 2004 1
Walker v. The N.C. State Board of Dental Examiners

95PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 13, 2016

Ryan McKaig, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth Brooks Scherer, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Walker, Cynthia (D.D.S.).

Carolin Bakewell, Attorney at Law, Matthew W. Sawchak, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for The N.C. State Board Of Dental Examiners.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 12th of July 2016 by Respondent:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of July 2016."

Respondent shall have up to and including the 14th day of September 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
STATE of North Carolina v. Sandra Meshell BRICE

No. 244PA16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Daniel Lawrence Spiegel, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Brice, Sandra Meshell.

Staples Hughes, Durham.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Nancy D. Hardison, Assistant Attorney General, Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, David Learner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 27th of June 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 27th of June 2016 by State of NC 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
# C_2011252EN.01003102.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2011 — Mitsubishi Electric v Commission

(Case T-133/07) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in gas insulated switchgear projects - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Market-sharing - Rights of the defence - Proof of the infringement - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Starting amount - Reference year - Equal treatment)

2011/C 252/73

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mitsubishi Electric Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: R. Denton, Solicitor, and K. Haegeman, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Arbault and J. Samnadda, then X. Lewis, and subsequently P. Van Nuffel and J. Bourke, and finally P. Van Nuffel and N. Khan, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION, primarily, for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear) to the extent to which it concerns the applicant and TM T & D, in the alternative, for the annulment of Article 2(g) of that decision and Article 2(h) thereof, to the extent to which it concerns the applicant and, in the further alternative, amendment of Article 2 of that decision so as to cancel or, failing which, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 2(g) and (h) of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear) in so far as it concerns Mitsubishi Electric Corp; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 2(g) and (h) of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear) in so far as it concerns Mitsubishi Electric Corp;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Mitsubishi Electric to bear three quarters of the costs incurred by the parties before the Court; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mitsubishi Electric to bear three quarters of the costs incurred by the parties before the Court;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to bear a quarter of the costs incurred by the parties before the Court. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear a quarter of the costs incurred by the parties before the Court.

---

(1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.

1

---
State v. Larry McLeod Pulley

42P04-8

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Larry McLeod Pulley, for Larry McLeod Pulley.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Vernon K. Stewart, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of July 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
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 Quarterly Report of RG Global Lifestyles, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended December 31, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Brian
      Ruttencutter, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2001, that:





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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      February 19, 2008




/s/
                Brian RuttencutterBrian
                RuttencutterChief
                Accounting Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136429 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136429 

 COA: 283738 

Saginaw CC: 07-029421-FH 

DEHAVEN LAPRIEST HOGG,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 31, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her dissenting 

statement in People v Conway, 474 Mich 1140 (2006). 

p0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
State v. Alonzo Antonio Murrell

233PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 16, 2016

*344James W. Carter, Attorney at Law, G. Glenn Gerding, Attorney at Law, Daniel Lawrence Spiegel, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Murrell, Alonzo Antonio.

Oliver G. Wheeler, Assistant Attorney General, Ernie Lee, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 15th of December 2016 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of December 2016."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 9th day of January 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Donald R. Kiepert, Jr., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K for Point Therapeutics, Inc.; 

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin 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. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’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 isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, 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 overfinancial reporting which are reasonably 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 significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 12, 2004