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

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

 

I, Douglas W. Fry, President of Autostrada Motors, Inc.(the "Registrant"), certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant; 

 

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 officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and we 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 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 presented in this Quarterly Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures; and 

 

c) disclosed in this Quarterly 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 and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of 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 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 over financial reporting. 

 

| *Date:*** | *10/17/06*** | * * | *By:***  | */s/Douglas W. Fry***                      |
|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|--------------------------------------------|
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Douglas W. Fry, President and Director*** |
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO T HE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-0XLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jesus
Oliveras, Chief Financial Officer of U.S. Precious Metals, Inc. (the
Company), do hereby 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.
This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended February
28, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.

Date: April
15, 2009

|                                | 
|------------------------------- | 
|/s/ Jesus
  Oliveras            | 
|                                | 
|Jesus
  Oliveras,               | 
|Chief
  Financial Officer       | 
|(Principal
  Financial Officer) | 

---
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            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 Quarterly Report of Gift Liquidators, Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the three-month period ended June 30, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), I, David Mladen, Chief Executive Officer (principal
executive and accounting officer) of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.



By: /s/ David Mladen
   --------------------------------------
    David Mladen
    Chief Executive Officer (principal
    executive and accounting officer)
    Dated this 21st day of August, 2006
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

MIGUEL A. HERNANDEZ , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1872

[ August 31, 2017 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; John S. Kastrenakes

, Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 2014CF010002A and 2014CF010161A

.
Miguel A. Hernandez, Okeechobee, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

G ROSS , T AYLOR and C ONNER , JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE HEAFNER
TIRE GROUP, INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. CERTAIN 1998 AMOUNTS HAVE
BEEN RECLASSIFIED TO CONFORM WITH THE 1999 PRESENTATION.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,648
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  111,691
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,220
<INVENTORY>                                    133,221
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               262,659
<PP&E>                                          55,652
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 430,821
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          206,097
<BONDS>                                        160,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           11,353
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            51
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,073
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   430,821
<SALES>                                        716,485
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               716,485
<CGS>                                          530,618
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  706,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (756)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,460
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,219)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       289
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,508)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (2,216)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,724)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.78)


</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Eric Wilson TAYLOR, Defendant.

No. COA17-1284

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

NEW TRIAL.
Exhibit
10.9







OUTSIDE
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PACKAGE




Effective
January 1, 2009, CompuCredit Corporation (the “Company”) will pay each outside
director who is independent in accordance with the NASDAQ and SEC rules
governing director independence (an “Eligible Director”) the following for
service to the Company:





Annual
      Cash Retainer
                      
                      $
                      50,000Attendance
      Fee for Each Board Meeting (including telephonic
    attendance)
                      
                      $
                      2,500Attendance
      Fee for Each Committee Meeting (including telephonic
      attendance)
                      
                      $
                      1,000




In
addition, the Chairman of the Audit Committee will receive an additional annual
fee of $25,000.  The Chairman of each of the Nominating and Corporate
Governance Committee and the Compensation Committee will receive an additional
annual fee of $5,000.




Each
Eligible Director also will receive an annual restricted stock award of 28,000
shares.  The restricted stock award will vest in two equal annual
installments beginning on the first anniversary of the grant date.




The
Company will also reimburse all reasonable out-of-pocket travel expenses that
are incurred in connection with board and committee meetings.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-40332 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. MARIO GUTIERREZ-PENA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:10-CR-1221-1
Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * T h e F e d e r a l P ub l i c D efender appointed to represent Mario Gu ti e rr e z - P e n a has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gutierrez-Pena has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

cou n s e l is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 21 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-40332 Document: 00511640638 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2011
EXHIBIT 32.1








CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. § 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mission West Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of Carl E. Berg, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Raymond V. Marino, President and Chief Operating Officer, and Wayne N. Pham, Vice President of Finance and Controller of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods included in the Report.








By: /s/ Carl E. BergCarl E. BergChairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 16, 2011





By: /s/ Raymond V. MarinoRaymond V. MarinoPresident and Chief Operating OfficerMarch 16, 2011





By: /s/ Wayne N. PhamWayne N. PhamVice President of Finance and ControllerMarch 16, 2011








This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or otherwise required, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




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.
#### J. N. Newton, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Jesse Burtz, defendant in error.

(Bv two judges.) “It must *affirmatively*appear, either by the certificate of the presiding Judge or the transcript of the record sent up by the Clerk, that the bill of exceptions was signed and certified within thirty days after the close of the terna in avhich the cause was heard,” or the writ of error will be dismissed. (R.) 20th February, 1872.

Complaint from Mitchell County.

The bill of exceptions recited that the cause was tried in May, 1871, and that the Judge committed certain errors. The Judge signed it on the 21st of July, 1871, saying he had retained it for ten days. It nowhere appeared when the Court adjourned. Upon motion of defendant’s counsel, the writ of error was dismissed, because it did not appear that the bill of exceptions was signed and certified within thirty days from the close of said Court.

J. J. Bradford, by Clark & Goss, for plaintiff in error.

C. O. Davis ; L. E. Bleckly, by the Reporter, for defendant,

cited: 6 Ga. R., 481, 491, 578,
Exhibit 10.3


 


Amendment No. 7 To Employment Agreement


 


Amendment No. 7, effective as of April
25, 2013, by and between The Berkshire Bank, a New York banking corporation("Employer"), and David Lukens("Employee"),
to the Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2001, between Employer and Employee (the "Employment Agreement").


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS, Employer and Employee entered
into the Employment Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, Employer and Employee wish to
amend the terms of the Employment Agreement with respect to the term thereof.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
covenants herein contained, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:


 


1.  Paragraph 2 of the Employment
Agreement (inadvertently identified as Paragraph 3 in Amendments Nos. 1-5 and correctly identified in Amendment No. 6) shall be
amended to read in its entirety as follows:


 





		"2.	Term of Employment. The employment by Employer
of Employee pursuant hereto shall commence as of the date hereof and, subject to the provisions of paragraph 5 hereof, shall terminate
on June 30, 2015. Effective July 1, 2015, unless Employee’s employment hereunder has already terminated, Employee’s
employment with Employer shall be at-will and may be terminated by Employee or Employer at any time, with or without Cause or
notice."








  


2.  Paragraph 7.3 of the Employment
Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and shall no longer be of any force or effect.


 


3.  Except as otherwise amended
hereby, the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall continue in full force and effect unamended from and after the date hereof.


 


This Amendment may be executed in counterparts.
Such counterparts, when taken together, shall constitute the agreement between the parties. Photographic and fax copies of such
signed counterparts may be used in lieu of the originals of this Amendment for any purpose.


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No.
7 has been executed and delivered by the parties hereto as of the date first above written.


 


	 	THE BERKSHIRE BANK
	 	 
	 	/s/ Moses Krausz
	 	President and CEO
	 	 
	 	/s/ David Lukens
	 	David Lukens
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD A. CANATELLA, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL 

REVENUE, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

No. 14-73457 

Tax Ct. No. 13787-12 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted April 11, 2017**

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 

Richard A. Canatella, an attorney, appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s 

decision, after a bench trial, upholding the determination of income tax 

deficiencies and penalties. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). 

We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a recusal motion. Glick v. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 19 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 14-73457

Edwards, 803 F.3d 505, 508 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm. 

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Canatella’s motion for 

recusal because Canatella failed to establish any ground for recusal. See Nobles v. 

Comm’r, 105 F.3d 436, 438 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining that the “mandatory 

recusal provisions in section 455 do not apply to tax court judges,” and noting the 

absence of a basis in statute or court rule for requiring tax court judges’ recusal); 

see also United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting 

forth grounds for recusal including “whether a reasonable person with knowledge 

of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be 

questioned” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 

We reject as unsupported by the record Canatella’s contention that the Tax 

Court demonstrated bias, partiality, or otherwise violated Canatella’s due process 

rights. 

We do not consider arguments, allegations, or evidence raised for the first 

time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988).

The Commissioner’s motion to strike extra-record material and arguments

(Docket Entry No. 26) is granted. 

AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL SARTAIN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ROBERT MEYERS; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Nos. 08-55683

 08-56317

D.C. No. 2:05-cv-05067-VAP-JC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Daniel Sartain, a California state prisoner,

appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action alleging that defendants failed to treat his chronic pain condition properly in

FILED

MAR 08 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
DS/Research 2 08-55683

violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056

(9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the Eighth

Amendment claim because Sartain did not raise a triable issue as to whether

defendants’ chosen course of treatment “was medically unacceptable under the

circumstances, and was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to

[Sartain’s] health.” See id. at 1058 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the equal

protection claim because Sartain did not raise a triable issue as to whether he was

intentionally treated differently from similarly situated inmates. See Thornton v.

City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2005).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sartain’s motions

for appointment of counsel because Sartain failed to demonstrate exceptional

circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

Sartain’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
DS/Research 3 08-55683

Sartain’s February 3, 2010, motion for an emergency injunction and

restraining order is denied.

AFFIRMED.
NUMBER 13-19-00039-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE CLAUDIA RAMOS

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on the amended motion for rehearing filed by 

Claudia Ramos. This Court previously issued a memorandum opinion dismissing this 

proceeding as moot. See In re Ramos, No. 13-19-00039-CV, 2019 WL 1051415, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Mar. 7, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Ramos asserts 

that the settlement previously reached in this case did not encompass all parties to this 

original proceeding.

The Court, having fully examined and considered Ramos’s motion for rehearing,

is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellant's motion for rehearing should be 
2

granted. Accordingly, we withdraw our previous opinion. This original proceeding 

remains pending before the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

8th day of April, 2019.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                           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 RTI International Metals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Timothy G. Rupert, Chief Executive 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:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 except that, as described
     in Item 9A of this Report, the reports required by Item 308 of Regulation
     S-K and the related disclosure are not yet complete; and

          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
     Company.

                                                  /s/ TIMOTHY G. RUPERT
                                          --------------------------------------
                                                    Timothy G. Rupert
                                                 Chief Executive Officer

April 14, 2005