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



Certifications



I, J.A. Cardwell, Sr., 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/ J.A. Cardwell, Sr.                                   
|(J.A. Cardwell, Sr.) Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer
Gregory P. NIES and Diane S. Nies v. TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE, a North Carolina Municipality

No. 409PA15

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 14, 2016

J. David Breemer, Attorney at Law, Keith P. Anthony, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Nies, Gregory P., et al.

Brian E. Edes, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Norwood P. Blanchard, III, Attorney at Law, J. Allen Jernigan, Attorney at Law, for Town of Emerald Isle.

Elliot Engstrom, Attorney at Law, for Civitas Institute Center for Law and Freedom.

Robert H. Thomas, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, Jason T. Campbell, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Owners' Counsel of America, et al.

James Patrick Longest, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Surfrider Foundation.

Geoffrey R. Gisler, Attorney at Law, Derb S. Carter, Jr., Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Southern Environmental Law Center.

Mary Louise Lucasse, Special Deputy Attorney General, for N.C. Coastal Resources Commission.

Todd S. Roessler, Attorney at Law, Phillip A. Harris, Jr., Attorney at Law, Joseph S. Dowdy, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Joseph J. Kalo, Attorney at Law, Amy Y. Bason, General Counsel, Walter Derrickson Taylor, Attorney at Law, Neil B. Whitford, Attorney at Law, Morehead City, Garris Neil Yarborough, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Charles S. Lanier, Attorney at Law, Jacksonville, Carl W. Thurman, III, Attorney at Law, Stephen D. Coggins, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Wanda M. Copley, County Attorney, John C. Wessell, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte Noel Fox, Attorney at Law, A. A. Canoutas, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, *700Robert V. Shaver, Jr., Attorney at Law, Charles S. Baldwin, IV, Attorney at Law, Justin K. Humphries, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Michael R. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, Southport, G. Grady Richardson, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Graham Kenan Professor of Law Emeritus Joseph Kalo, et al.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Solicitor General, Marc Bernstein, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina Ex Rel. Attorney General Roy Cooper.

J. Mitchell Armbruster, Attorney at Law, B. Davis Horne, Jr., Attorney at Law, Eva G. Frongello, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. Travel and Tourism Coalition, et al.

Sam Hayes, Attorney at Law, David B. Efird, Deputy General Counsel, Beth A. Onyenwoke, Attorney at Law, Kevin V. Howell, Attorney at Law, for Department of Environmental Quality, et al.

Benjamin Marshall Gallop, Attorney at Law, John D. Leidy, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth City, Robert B. Hobbs, Jr., Attorney at Law, Nags Head, Donald I. McRee, Jr., Currituck County Attorney, Ronald G. Baker, Attorney at Law, Ahoskie, Casey C. Varnell, Attorney at Law, for County of Dare, et al.

**ORDER**

Appeal dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in Conference, this the 14th day of December 2016.
**Exhibit 31.1**
CEO CERTIFICATION
I, Robert W. Winston, III, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Winston Hotels, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4.  The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rule 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;
(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and
(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: March 16, 2005    /s/ Robert W. Winston, III Robert W. Winston, III Chief Executive Officer
1
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-08-00122-CV

______________________________

IN RE: TRANSITO JOSE RODRIGUEZ

 

Original Mandamus Proceeding

 

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Transito Jose Rodriguez filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the Gregg

County District Clerk's alleged failure to issue "any legal notices" regarding an application for habeas

corpus relief filed by Rodriguez on September 4, 2008. Rodriguez has presented nothing in the way

of a record to this Court.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that issues only to correct a clear abuse of discretion

or violation of a duty imposed by law when no other adequate remedy by law is available. State v.

Walker, 679 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex. 1984) (orig. proceeding). This Court has the authority to issue

a writ of mandamus in two instances, the first being when it is necessary to enforce this Court's

jurisdiction. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a) (Vernon 2004). It is Rodriguez's burden to

properly request and show entitlement to the mandamus relief he requests. See generally Johnson

v. Fourth Dist. Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding). 

The second instance in which we have authority to issue a writ of mandamus occurs where

it is "against a . . . judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district; or . . . a judge

of a district court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry . . . in the court of appeals

district." TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b) (Vernon 2004). Rodriguez seeks a writ of mandamus

against a district clerk. Because the clerk is not a proper party to which mandamus relief may be

brought, we dismiss Rodriguez's petition for writ of mandamus against the Gregg County District

Clerk for lack of jurisdiction. In re James, No. 06-08-00111-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 7689 (Tex.
3

App.—Texarkana Oct. 10, 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.);In re Phillips, No. 06-07-00057-CV,

2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 3128 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 25, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

We deny the petition. 

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: October 21, 2008

Date Decided: October 22, 2008
# C_2011080EN.01003401.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/34

---

Order of the General Court of 25 January 2011 — Basell Polyolefine v Commission

(Case T-399/07) (1)

1

2011/C 80/60

Language of the case: German

The President of the First Chamber (extended composition) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007.

1

---
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.                  

###### Postal Rate Commission

# AGENCY:

Postal Rate Commission (PRC).

# Time and Date:

Convening on Wednesday, October 5, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. and continuing daily thereafter as needed, after 9:30 a.m., until completed.

# Place:

Commission conference room, 901 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268-0001.

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters to be considered:

Recommendations in Docket No. R2005-1.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, Postal Rate Commission, 202-789-6820.

Dated: September 22, 2005.

Steven W. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 05-19310  Filed 9-22-05; 4:41 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710-FW-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4362

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. EDWARD CASH, a/k/a Eddie, a/k/a Ed, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:07-cr-01254-CMC-1) Submitted: October 2, 2008 Decided: October 27, 2008 Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. H. Wayne Floyd, WAYNE FLOYD LAW OFFICE, West Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, William K. Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Edward Cash pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000), and was sentenced to 235 months in prison. Cash’s sole contention on appeal is that it was error for the district court to enhance his sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2000) when no 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2000) information was filed by the Government. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Cash explicitly agreed in his plea agreement that the Government complied with § 851's notice requirements and that he would not challenge the qualifying nature of his prior convictions. He also attested at his plea hearing that he read his plea agreement, was familiar with and understood this provision, and entered the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily. Despite the seemingly mandatory phrasing of § 851, we have recently recognized that its formal requirements can be waived. United States v. Beasley , 495 F.3d 142, 148 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied , 128 S. Ct. 1471 (2008). In light of the particular facts revealed by the record in this appeal, we conclude that Cash waived his right to challenge the Government’s technical noncompliance with § 851. See United States v. Mooring , 287 F.3d 725, 728 (8th Cir. 2002) (finding § 851's notice requirements waived by the defendant where: (i) the defendant stipulated in his plea agreement that he received- 3 - proper § 851 notice, even though he had not; (ii) admitted the prior conviction to the district court; and (iii) indicated that he was aware of the enhanced sentence). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 13

- 15557 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:12

- cr
- 00278

- WTM

- GRS

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus ANTONIO TAVARIS BROWN,
Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________ (July 31, 2014)

Before TJOFLAT , HULL and JORDAN , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-15557 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 1 of 22 Solomon A. Am usan , appointed counsel for Antoni o Tavaris Brown , has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the ent ire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s
motion is GRANTED , and Brown’s conviction and sentence are AFF IRMED.

Case: 13-15557 Date Filed: 07/31/2014 Page: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4067 Received in Senate (RDS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4067

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 10, 2014

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To provide for the extension of the enforcement instruction on 
    supervision requirements for outpatient therapeutic services in 
        critical access and small rural hospitals through 2014.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ENFORCEMENT INSTRUCTION ON SUPERVISION 
              REQUIREMENTS FOR OUTPATIENT THERAPEUTIC SERVICES IN 
              CRITICAL ACCESS AND SMALL RURAL HOSPITALS THROUGH 2014.

    The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall continue to apply 
through calendar year 2014 the enforcement instruction described in the 
notice of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services entitled 
``Enforcement Instruction on Supervision Requirements for Outpatient 
Therapeutic Services in Critical Access and Small Rural Hospitals for 
CY 2013'', dated November 1, 2012 (providing for an exception to the 
restatement and clarification under the final rulemaking changes to the 
Medicare hospital outpatient prospective payment system and calendar 
year 2009 payment rates (published in the Federal Register on November 
18, 2008, 73 Fed. Reg. 68702 through 68704) with respect to 
requirements for direct supervision by physicians for therapeutic 
hospital outpatient services).

            Passed the House of Representatives September 9, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# Official Journal L 79/24 M

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 79 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4824 March 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 79

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4824 March 2005

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Decision No 456/2005/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2005 establishing a multiannual Community programme to make digital content in Europe more accessible, usable and exploitable. (1) | 1 |
| | * | Directive 2005/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2005 amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 85/611/EEC, 91/675/EEC, 92/49/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directives 94/19/EC, 98/78/EC, 2000/12/EC, 2001/34/EC, 2002/83/EC and 2002/87/EC in order to establish a new organisational structure for financial services committees. (1) | 9 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

*

Decision No 456/2005/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2005 establishing a multiannual Community programme to make digital content in Europe more accessible, usable and exploitable. (1)

1

*

Directive 2005/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2005 amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 85/611/EEC, 91/675/EEC, 92/49/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directives 94/19/EC, 98/78/EC, 2000/12/EC, 2001/34/EC, 2002/83/EC and 2002/87/EC in order to establish a new organisational structure for financial services committees. (1)

9

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 21 October 2008 – Aventis Pharma v OHIM – Nycomed (PRAZOL)**

**(Case T-95/07)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark PRAZOL – Earlier national word mark PREZAL – 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 26, 30, 56-57)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 February 2007 (Case R 302/2005-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Altana Pharma AG and Aventis Pharma SA. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Nycomed GmbH, formerly Altana Pharma AG |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark PRAZOL for goods in Class 5 – Application No 1154269 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Aventis Pharma SA |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | National word mark PREZAL for goods in Class 5 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and the opposition dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 February 2007 (Case R 302/2005‐4); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Aventis Pharma SA; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders Nycomed GmbH to bear its own costs. |