alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31



Certification



I, Rory Clarke, certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Universal Ice Blast, Inc.



(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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



(4) I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:



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



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



(5) I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.



/s/ Rory Clarke

By  __________________________________

Rory Clarke

Director, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Date:  April 16, 2004
#### Bobbi-Lyn REED, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. MBNA MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC., MBNA America Bank, NA and MBNA America Corporation, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 02-2705.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

July 11, 2003.

Before BOUDIN, Chief Judge, TORRUELLA and SELYA *, Circuit Judges, LYNCH *, LIPEZ and HOWARD Circuit Judges.

*

 Judge Selya and Judge Lynch are recused and did not participate in the consideration of this matter,

ORDER OF COURT

The petition for rehearing is denied. Contrary to the petition for rehearing, the court’s decision makes it clear that a complainant cannot bypass an adequate complaint procedure if the failure to do so was “objectively unreasonable for one in [the complainant’s] position.” Op. at 37. *See also*op. at 37 (“Or, the jury might conclude that whatever Reed’s state of mind, a reasonable person in her position would have reported Appel’s assault.”).

The opinion also contemplated that Reed could not excuse a failure to use the complaint process based on threats of retaliation and Appel’s purported family influence if “in fact” Reed was not persuaded by these threats and therefore the threats were not a cause of the failure to use the complaint process. Op. at 37. *See also*op. at 37. But this does not eliminate the objective test for reasonableness and serves only to give additional protection to a defendant.

The petition for rehearing en banc having been carefully considered by the judges of the Court in regular active service and a majority of said judges not having voted to order that the appeals be heard or reheard by the Court en banc,

It is ordered that the petition for rehearing en banc, be *denied.*
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GREG GARNER

No. 733SC665

(Filed 9 January 1974)

Criminal Law § 113— necessity for instruction on alibi

The trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that defendant, who relied on alibi, did not have the burden of proving it where defendant’s trial occurred prior to the opinion of *State v. Hunt,*283 N.C. 617.

Appeal by defendant from *Rouse, Judge,*16 April 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Carteret County.

Defendant was convicted of feloniously distributing marijuana in violation of G.S. 90-95.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by James E. Magner, Jr., Assistcmt Attorney General for the State.*

*A. B. Cooper, Jr. and Wheatly & Mason by C. Wheatly, Jr., attorneys for defendant appellant.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

At trial defendant offered evidence that he was not present at the time and place the alleged crime was committed. The jury was not instructed that defendant, who relied on an alibi, did not have the burden of proving it. The trial occurred prior to the opinion of our Supreme Court in *State v. Hunt,*283 N.C. 617, 197 S.E. 2d 513 and, therefore, the omission of the instruction constituted prejudicial error. *State v. Moore,*19 N.C. App. 368, 198 S.E. 2d 760.

New trial.

Judges Morris and Hedrick concur.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HARVEY LEE MURCHISON

No. 7310SC408

(Filed 11 July 1973)

Larceny § 7 — larceny of automobile — sufficiency of evidence

Evidence was sufficient to withstand defendant’s motion for non-suit in a larceny case where it tended to show that on the same day a car owner discovered his vehicle missing, a deputy sheriff saw seven Negro males in the car, that the deputy later saw the car with its passengers and defendant driving, that the deputy asked to see defendant’s driver’s license and the vehicle registration, that defendant fled from the deputy, was apprehended later that day, and again attempted to escape.

Appeal by defendant from *Hobgood, Judge,*First January 1973 Regular Criminal Session of Wake County Superior Court.

Defendant was tried by proper indictment for larceny of an automobile. He was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to imprisonment for three years.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney Edioin M. Speas, Jr., for the State.*

*Sanford, Cannon, Adams & McCullough by John H. Parker for defendant appellant.*

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The evidence stated in the light most favorable to the State tends to show that on 18 July 1972 William Prentice Baker III, Vice President of Baker Roofing Company, drove a 1971 Buick station wagon to his office. He left the keys in the automobile and did not lock the doors. When Baker left the office after 6:00 p.m. the car was missing and he had not given permission to anyone to use the car.

On 18 July 1972 Deputy Sheriff James Brown saw a green 1971 Buick station wagon with seven Negro males. Later the *674same day he again saw the automobile with all its passengers at a ball park in Fuquay-Varina. Deputy Brown saw that the defendant was driving the automobile.

At the ball park the deputy had parked his car behind the Buick, and defendant asked the deputy to move his car so that the Buick could get out of the parking lot. Deputy Brown asked to see defendant’s operator’s license and the automobile registration. The Buick was registered to Baker Roofing Company; the defendant did not have an operator’s license. Defendant ran from Deputy Brown.

Later that day defendant was apprehended by police in a city park in Raleigh, and again attempted to escape. Deputy Brown saw defendant in Raleigh at the police station and identified him as the driver of the stolen Buick.

That the above evidence is sufficient to withstand a motion for judgment as of the case of nonsuit is clearly established by law, and needs no elaboration. See for example, *State v. Coleman,*17 N.C. App. 119, 193 S.E. 2d 292 (1972), in which the stolen automobile was found by police more than three months after the theft, and the automobile had been in defendant’s possession for two months of that time; and *State v. Franklin*and *State v. Hughes,*16 N.C. App. 537, 192 S.E. 2d 626 (1972), in which the defendant was arrested twenty-four hours after theft of the automobile which he was driving.

The defendant has had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Hedrick and Baley concur.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 199 (Monday, October 17, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60379-60380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20872]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting; Board of Directors Meeting

October 27, 2005.

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, October 27, 2005, 10 a.m. (Open Portion). 
10:15 a.m. (Closed Portion).

PLACE: Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New 
York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: Meeting open to the Public from 10 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. closed 
portion will commence at 10:15 a.m. (approx.).

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. President's Report.
    2. Testimonial.
    3. Approval of September 15, 2005 Minutes (Open Portion).

FURTHER MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: (Closed to the Public 10:15 a.m.)
    1. Insurance Project--Peru.
    2. Approval of September 15, 2005 Minutes (Closed Portion).
    3. Pending Major Projects.
    4. Reports.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information on the meeting may be 
obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438.


[[Page 60380]]


    Dated: September 1, 2005.
Connie M. Downs,
Corporate Secretary, Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
[FR Doc. 05-20872 Filed 10-13-05; 3:46 am]
BILLING CODE 3210-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7618

DAVID WILLIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JASMINE MARCHANT; KEVIN MURPHY; T. J. HAYCOX; KATHERINE 

PECBLES; LUCY LEE; SARAH MERKLE; JEFF BROWN; LUKE MCCLOUD; 

JONATHAN DAVID SHAUB; JUSTIN MURRAY; GRAYSON LAMBERT; WILL 

BRUMBACH; JOHN KAMMERRER; TONY EMMANUEL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert G. Doumar, 

Senior District Judge. (3:12-cv-00843-RGD)

Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 27, 2014

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Willis, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Bradford Taylor, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Willis appeals the district court’s order

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. See Willis v. 

Marchant, No. 3:12-cv-00843-RGD (W.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 2013). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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.                  

###### Arctic Research Commission

          - [USARC 05-100]

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Arctic Research Commission will hold its 77th meeting in Corvallis, OR on October 25, 26, 2005.The Business Sessions, open to the public, will convene at 9 a.m. Tuesday, October 25, 2005. The Agenda items include:

(1) Call to order and approval of the Agenda.

(2) Approval of the Minutes of the 76th Meeting.

(3) Reports from Congressional Liaisons.

(4) Agency Reports.

The focus of the meetings will be reports and updates on programs and research projects affecting the Arctic.

The Business Session will reconvene at 9 a.m. Wednesday, October 26, 2005. An Executive Session will follow adjournment of the Business Session.

Any person planning to attend this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs.

Contact Person for More Information: Dr. Garrett W. Brass, Executive Director U.S. Arctic Research Commission, 703-525-0111 of TDD 703-306-0090.

Garrett W. Brass,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 05-20666  Filed 10-14-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6679** 

CALVIN S

. WEDINGTON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. UNNAMED DEPUTY U.S. MARSHAL, First; UNNAMED DEPUTY U.S. MARSHAL, Second; LORETTA E. LYNCH; KENNY ATKINSON; USA , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:15

- ct

- 03301

- BO )

Submitted : October 14, 2016 Decided: October 28, 2016

Before MOTZ , TRAXLER , and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Calvin S

. Wedington , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Calvin Scott Wedington appeals from the district court’s
order dismissing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2012) his

civil action filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971) . On appeal, Wedington fails to explain how the district court erred in its

dismissal decision. Wedington thus has forfeited appellate

review of the court’s order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Wahi v.
Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc. , 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir.
2009); Williams v. G iant Food Inc. , 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4
(4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and affirm the district court’s judgment.

We deny Wedington’s motions to appoint counsel and dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Richard A. Lozyniak,certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc (the “registrant”);

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

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

(a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 11, 2006
|        | **/s/  RICHARD A. LOZYNIAK**           |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Richard A.  Lozyniak                   |
|   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Craig Steven SMITH, Plaintiff, v. Vera C. SMITH (McDermott), Defendant.

No. COA18-59

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 2, 2018

REVERSED. REMANDED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.4


March 15, 2001

Pennzoil-Quaker State Company


Re: Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000

    Gentlemen:

    This letter is written to meet the requirements of Regulation S-K calling
    for a letter from a registrant's independent accountants whenever there has
    been a change in accounting principle or practice.

    In 2000, the Company changed from the last-in, first-out (LIFO) method of
    accounting for certain inventories to the average cost method. Consequently,
    all of the Company's inventories are stated at average cost. According to
    the management of the Company, this change was made to more accurately
    measure operating results for its continuing operations by recognizing raw
    material price fluctuations as they occur on a moving average basis, reduce
    the cost of sales volatility that would be caused by pending inventory
    liquidations and adjust inventory balances to amounts that more closely
    reflect the inventories' current cost. In addition, the average cost method
    is the predominant method used in the consumer products industry.

    A complete coordinated set of financial and reporting standards for
    determining the preferability of accounting principles among acceptable
    alternative principles has not been established by the accounting
    profession. Thus, we cannot make an objective determination of whether the
    change in accounting described in the preceding paragraph is to a preferable
    method. However, we have reviewed the pertinent factors, including those
    related to financial reporting, in this particular case on a subjective
    basis, and our opinion stated below is based on our determination made in
    this manner.

    We are of the opinion that the Company's change in method of accounting is
    to an acceptable alternative method of accounting, which, based upon the
    reasons stated for the change and our discussions with you, is also
    preferable under the circumstances in this particular case. In arriving at
    this opinion, we have relied on the business judgment and business planning
    of your management.


Very truly yours,

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Exhibit 32.1



Educate, Inc.



Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



I, R. Christopher Hoehn-Saric, Chief Executive Officer of Educate, Inc. (the
Company), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ R. Christopher Hoehn-SaricName: R. Christopher Hoehn-SaricDate: November 14, 2005




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