alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Corey J. Coughlin, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of First State Financial Corporation. 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared:  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee or registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of theinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  November 9, 2005 By*:  /s/ Corey J. Coughlin*      Corey J. Coughlin
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Raymond D. WHITE, Appellant.

No. WD 61790.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 29, 2003.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 2, 2003.

Andrew A. Schroeder, Ruth B. Sanders, Appellate Defenders, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Patrick T. Morgan, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before: ULRICH, P.J., and HOWARD and NEWTON, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Raymond White of assault in the first degree and armed criminal action. On appeal, he alleges that the trial court clearly erred in overruling his *Batson*objection to the prosecutor’s use of its peremptory strike to remove an African-American venireperson from the panel. *Batson v. Kentucky,*476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).

We find no inherently discriminatory intent in the prosecutor’s explanation for its striking the venireperson from the jury panel. Appellant failed to show that the prosecutor’s proffered reasons for the strike were merely pretextual and that the strike was racially motivated.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
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 Clean Power Technologies Inc.  (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Abdul Mitha, President and Principal Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  January 22, 2007

By:  /s/ Abdul Mitha

Name: Abdul Mitha

Title:    President (Principal Executive Officer)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, SBIR Topics 200 (Phase II) and 201 (Phase II),                    

*Date:*                         October 19, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 2 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6130 Executive Blvd., Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Joyce C. Pegues, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Special Review and Logistics Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Blvd., 7149, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/594-1286,                         *peguesj@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: September 21, 2005.

Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-19382 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1598/2004

of 10 September 2004         

prohibiting fishing for megrim by vessels flying the flag of Portugal

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 21(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Catches of megrim in the waters of ICES division VIIIc, sub-areas IX and X and CECAF 34.1.1 (EC waters) by vessels flying the flag of Portugal or registered in Portugal are hereby deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated to Portugal for 2004.

Fishing for megrim in the waters of ICES division VIIIc, sub-areas IX and X and CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Portugal or registered in Portugal is hereby prohibited, as are the retention on board, transhipment and landing of this stock caught by the above vessels after the date of application of this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 14 June 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 September 2004.

For the Commission

Jörgen HOLMQUIST            

Director-General for Fisheries

----

(1)OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 (OJ L 289, 7.11.2003, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 344, 31.12.2003, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 867/2004 (OJ L 161, 30.4.2004, p. 144).

----
----

Action brought on 13 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-349/04)

(2004/C 239/17)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Gippini Fournier and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 9 of Directive 2002/77/EC requires the Member States to supply the Commission, no later than 24 July 2003, with information allowing it to confirm that the provisions of that directive have been complied with.

----

(1)  Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21).

----
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, J. Roe Buckley, Chief Financial Officer of Mewbourne Development Corporation, Managing General
Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners 04-A, L.P. (the Registrant), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
Mewbourne Energy Partners 04-A, L.P.

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, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, 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. The
registrants other certifying officers 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)) [and internal control over financial reporting (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))] 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 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 our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(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; 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; and

6. The registrants other certifying
officers and 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 or our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



|Date: | May 22, 2006
|----- | ------------



/s/ J. Roe BuckleyJ. Roe BuckleyChief Financial OfficerMewbourne Development Corporation,Managing General Partner of the Registrant
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 94-5930 WILLIAM A. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-2) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 2, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL John D. Delgado, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Preston Strom, Jr., United States Attorney, Beth Caldwell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: William A. Brown appeals his conviction and sentence on a guilty plea on a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g) (West Supp. 1995). Brown's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that the judge erred in sentencing Brown to the "maximum" allowable under the guidelines, but concluding that there were no meritorious grounds for appeal. Brown was notified of his right to filean additional brief, which he did, claiming violations of his constitutional rights due to: (1) his alleged failure to receive a warrant or indictment on the charged offense; (2) the district court's allegedly erroneous application of the sentencing guidelines; and (3) his dual convictions in state and federal court for the same offense. In accordance with the requirements of Anders , we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We find that Brown's guideline range was properly calculated pursuant to the United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual . As such, the district judge's imposition of a sentence within that range does not state an appealable question under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742 (West 1985 & Supp. 1995). See United States v. Porter , 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990). In addition, we find the additional issues Brown raised in his supplemental brief to be without merit. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel maymove in this Court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.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
# Official Journal C 249I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 249I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6329 July 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 249I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6329 July 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2020/C 249 I/01 | Adoption of amendments to the Rules of Procedure of Eurojust | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2020/C 249 I/01

Adoption of amendments to the Rules of Procedure of Eurojust

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

| 29.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 249/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 249/1

---

Adoption of amendments to the Rules of Procedure of Eurojust

(2020/C 249 I/01)

The College of Eurojust has adopted on 24 July 2020 amendments to Eurojust’s Rules of Procedure (1). Those amendments are attached to Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1114 of 23 July 2020 (2).

For the College of Eurojust,

Ladislav HAMRAN

President of Eurojust

---

(1)  Approved by the Council by Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2250 of 19 December 2019 (OJ L 336, 30.12.2019, p. 309) and adopted by the College on 20 December 2019 (OJ L 50, 24.2.2020, p. 1.).

1

(2)  OJ L 244, 29.7.2020, p. 13

2

---
[592 NYS2d 228]

#### S. Kornreich & Sons, Inc., Doing Business as Kornreich Insurance Services, Plaintiff, v Goldsmith Murphy, Inc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, New York County,

November 25, 1992

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Morrison, Cohen, Singer & Weinstein,*New York City *(Dena A. Roth*of counsel), for plaintiff. *Napolitano & Goldsmith, P. C,*New York City *(Michael P. Goldsmith*of counsel), for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Herman Cahn, J.

On September 21, 1992, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was "marked off calendar” for its failure to appear *208and defendant’s cross motion was submitted on default. On October 21, 1992, plaintiff moved to vacate the default. The court grants this motion, vacates the default, and will consider both motion and cross motion for summary judgment.

On June 7, 1990, plaintiff, S. Kornreich & Sons, Inc., doing business as Kornreich Insurance Services (Kornreich), entered into an agreement to split certain real estate commissions with Goldsmith Murphy, Inc., a licensed real estate broker. The agreement arose from the circumstance that Kornreich’s lease was expiring, and it arranged for Goldsmith Murphy, Inc., to negotiate its renewal. As part of said renewal, Goldsmith Murphy, Inc., was to be paid a brokerage fee by the owner of the space. Goldsmith Murphy, Inc. was to remit 65% of the total commission to Kornreich, and retain 35%.

After signing the agreement, Goldsmith refused to pay the agreed portion of the commission to Kornreich on the grounds that Kornreich is not a licensed real estate broker.

Pursuant to section 442-d of the Real Property Law, "No * * * corporation shall bring or maintain an action in any court of this state for the recovery of compensation for services rendered * * * in the buying * * * renting * * * a loan upon any real estate without alleging and proving that such [corporation] was a duly licensed real estate broker * * * on the date when the alleged cause of action arose.” *(Real Estate Multiple Listing Exch. v Rubin,*7 Misc 2d 194; *Brandenburger & Marx v Heimberg,*34 NYS2d 935.)

It is argued that James D. Kornreich, executive vice-president of Kornreich Insurance Services is an attorney and therefore, could have recovered the brokerage commission as an attorney, without being licensed as a real estate broker. (Real Property Law § 442-f.) However the exemption of attorneys from the provisions of the statute is personal to the attorney. Here, Kornreich is a corporation. It may not perform the functions of a real estate broker, or be paid for them, unless it is licensed. (Real Property Law § 442-d.) Kornreich never obtained a license, and the fact that one of its officers is an attorney who may collect a brokerage fee does not constitute its being licensed.

Accordingly the motion is denied and the cross motion for summary judgment is granted.
IN RE: DUVALL

372P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 7, 2017

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, David Learner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Kenneth Kelly Duvall, for Duvall, Kenneth Kelly.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of November 2017 by Petitioner for Default Judgment:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of November 2017."
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 DSA Financial Corporation (the
"Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this Certification (the
"Report"), I, Steven R. Doll, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

         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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to DSA Financial Corporation and will be retained by DSA Financial
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.



                                               /s/Steven R. Doll
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Steven R. Doll
                                               Chief Financial Officer

Date:  February 10, 2005
In the MATTER OF: N.J.P.

No. COA17-532

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 7, 2017

REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART.
STATE of North Carolina v. Dwight PARKER, Sr.

No. 306P04-5

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Mr. Dwight Parker, Sr., For Parker, Dwight, Sr.

Ms. Latoya B. Powell, Assistant Attorney General, For State of NC.

Mr. Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, For State of NC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 9th of January 2018 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Pitt County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of January 2018 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."

Ervin, J. recused