alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERI, Horace J. Davis III, certify that—     1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Trinsic, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances 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 informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers 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 controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal
87

 
control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent function)—          a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: March 31, 2006           /s/ HORACE J. DAVIS III     Horace J. Davis III    Chief Executive Officer       A signed original of this written statement has been provided to Trinsic, Inc. and will beretained by the Trinsic, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.
88
EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                  Other names
                                                                                                  under which
Name                                Owner                                  Jurisdiction          doing business
----                                -----                                  ------------          --------------
<S>                                 <C>                                    <C>                       <C>
3560309 Canada Inc.                 The Registrant's                       Canada (federal)          None
                                    interest (all of the
                                    voting/ common shares)
                                    is owned through Planet
                                    411 (Nova Scotia) Company

Planet 411 (Nova Scotia)            The Registrant has 100%                Nova Scotia, Canada       None
Company                             direct ownership interest

3883884 Canada Inc.                 The Registrant has 100%                Canada (federal)          None
                                    direct ownership interest
</TABLE>


                                       27
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Case No: 3:01cr35/RV

3:06cv97/RV/MD

JIMMY W. JOINER

_____________________________________________________________________

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation dated March 8, 2006. The defendant previously has been furnished

a copy of the report and recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to

file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), and I have

made a de novo determination of those portions to which an objection has been

made.

Having considered the report and recommendation and all objections thereto

timely filed by the parties, I have determined that the report and recommendation

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 41) is summarily DISMISSED as untimely.

DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of April, 2006.

_/s/ Roger Vinson____________

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:01-cr-00035-RV-MD Document 46 Filed 04/14/06 Page 1 of 1
# C_2011289EN.01000301.xml

| 1.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/3

---

Communication from the Commission relating to the overall allocation of certain quotas opened by the European Union for products in the rice sector in 2011

2011/C 289/03

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1274/2009 (1) opened tariff quotas for the import of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories (OCT).

1

The overall allocation for 2011 of each quota provided for by that Regulation is set out in the Annex to this communication.

---

(1)  OJ L 344, 23.12.2009, p. 3.

1

---

ANNEX

Overall allocation for 2011 of the quotas under Regulation (EU) No 1274/2009

| Origin | Order number | Import licence applications introduced for the September 2011 subperiod | Overall allocation of the quota for 2011 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Netherlands Antilles and Aruba | 09.4189 | (1) | 0 % |
| Least developed OCTs | 09.4190 | (1) | 0 % |

Origin

Order number

Import licence applications introduced for the September 2011 subperiod

Overall allocation of the quota for 2011

Netherlands Antilles and Aruba

09.4189

(1)

0 %

Least developed OCTs

09.4190

(1)

0 %

---

(1)  No allocation coefficient for this subperiod: no licence applications were sent to the Commission.

---
#### STATE v. BROWN

No. 4 PC.

Case below: 13 N.C. App. 315.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 7 March 1972.
#### McLEOD v. McLEOD

No. 73 PC.

Case below: 43 N.C. App. 66.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 December 1979.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6868

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH J. SCHEPIS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-91-425-3, CA-95-4010-17-3)

Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 2, 1997

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph J. Schepis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Eric William Ruschky,

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph J. Schepis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994),

amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Schepis, Nos. CR-91-425-3; CA-95-4010-17-3 (D.S.C. May 14, 1996).

We deny Appellant's motion to stay the case. 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.

DISMISSED
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





I, Edward Hebert, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Saratoga Resources, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Saratoga Resources, Inc.





| |        |                         
| | ------ | ------------------------
| | By:    | /s/ Edward Hebert       
| | Name:  | Edward Hebert           
| | Title: | Vice President  Finance
| | Dated: | March 10, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 5455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-541]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

Time and Date: 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, February 13, 2007.

Place: NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 
20594.

Status: The two items are open to the public.

Matters to be Considered: 
    7862 Aviation Aircraft Accident Report--Weather Encounter and 
Subsequent Collision into Terrain, Bali Hai Helicopter Tours, Inc., 
Bell 206B, N16849, Kalaheo, Hawaii, September 24, 2004.
    7861 Aviation Accident Brief and Safety Recommendation Letter--
Weather Encounter and Subsequent Crash into the Pacific Ocean, Heli-USA 
Airways, Inc., Aerospatiale AS350BA, N355NT, Haena, Hawaii, September 
23, 2005.

News Media Contact: Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
    Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Chris 
Bisett at (202) 314-6305 by Friday, February 9, 2007.
    The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by 
accessing a link under ``News & Events'' on the NTSB home page at 
www.ntsb.gov.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicky D'Onofrio, (202) 314-6410.

    Dated: February 2, 2007.
Vicky D'Onofrio,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-541 Filed 2-2-07; 1:16 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-M
#### STATE v. WILLIAM MACK SEYMOUR.

(Filed 23 July, 1965.)

Criminal Law § 132—

Where the court does not enter separate judgments but consolidates for judgment and sentence eight cases and enters one judgment thereon, such judgment cannot exceed the maximum for one offense.

ON *certiorari*to review order entered by *Mints, J.,*at the April, 1965 Session, WayNE Superior Court.

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., Staff Attorney for the State.*

*Henson P. Barnes for defendant appellant..*

Per Curiam.

The following appears from the application for *certiorari*and the Attorney General’s answer: The defendant was in-*217dieted in the Superior Court of Wayne County in eight cases, Nos. 7600 through 7607, each charging house breaking and larceny. At the November Session, 1963, the defendant (and a codefendant, Jarvis Bowen) through counsel, entered pleas of guilty to all charges. “The eight cases were consolidated for purposes of plea and judgment, the court (Cowper, J., presiding) imposed a single sentence of 20 years in the State’s Prison . . .”

The defendant, by writ of *habeas corpus*before Judge Mintz, challenged the legality of the sentence upon the ground that one judgment having been entered, the punishment could not exceed ten years. Judge Mintz held the sentence of 20 years was not unlawful and denied relief.

Unquestionably Judge Cowper could have entered a separate judgment in each case and could have provided that sentences run consecutively. However, he consolidated the cases and entered one judgment. That judgment could not exceed 10 years.

The cause is remanded to the Superior Court of Wayne County with directions to vacate the sentence imposed by Judge Cowper and to enter in lieu thereof a sentence which in no event may exceed the statutory limit of 10 years. The prisoner is entitled to credit thereon for the time served.

Remanded for the entry of a proper judgment.
**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**

| /s/  David                L.                Cheek                                                                                David                L. CheekPresident                and Chief Executive OfficerAugust                14, 2007 | /s/  Bert                E. Downing,                Jr.                                                                                    Bert                E. Downing, Jr.Vice                President, Chief Financial Officer,Corporate                Controller and TreasurerAugust                14, 2007 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Frazier EATON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 19841.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Aug. 5, 1965.

Frazier M. Eaton, in pro. per.

Wm. N. Goodwin, U. S. Atty., Ronald G. Neubauer, Asst. U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for appellee.

Before ORR, JERTBERG and MERRILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JEFFREY A. COLE,

Plaintiff, 

v. CASE NO.: 5:10-cv-73-SPM-EMT

WALTER McNEIL, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 6). Plaintiff has been afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1). Plaintiff filed an objection (doc. 8). Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code,

Section 636(b)(1), I have conducted a de novo review of the sections of the report to

which objections have been made. I find that the Report and Recommendation is

correct and should be adopted.

Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that Plaintiff does

not fall within the “imminent danger of serious physical injury” exception to the forma

pauperis “three-strike” rule. Plaintiff argues that his rib is not “healed” and that a

medical expert would thereby opine that Plaintiff’s rib poses an imminent danger of

serious physical injury. However, Plaintiff does not satisfy the exception as Plaintiff

acknowledged that the alleged fracture, which occurred in April of 2009, was healed by
the time he filed the complaint in April of 2010. Thus, Plaintiff’s contention that his

injury is ongoing or that serious physical injury is imminent is without merit.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 6) is adopted

and incorporated by reference into this order.

2. This case is dismissed without prejudice.

3. All pending motions are denied as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED this nineteenth day of July, 2010. 

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WILLIE MAE STUART,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-96-SPM -GRJ

OFFICER HATTAN and 

Dr. CARBONELLE,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 38, Defendant’s Motion For Extension of

Time to File Answer. Defendants request an additional 45 days to file their answers

because the Defendants presently have pending requests for representation to the

United States Department of Justice. Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ Motion, Doc. 38, is GRANTED. Defendants shall file their

responses to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint on or before July 11, 2011.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27 day of May 2011. 

th

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00096-SPM-GRJ Document 39 Filed 05/27/11 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ali Jenab, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of SourceForge, Inc. on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended July 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of SourceForge,
Inc.

|Date: October 9,
      2007 | By:    | /s/ ALI JENAB                              
|--------------------------- | ------ | -------------------------------------------
|                            | Name:  | Ali Jenab                                  
|                            | Title: | Chief
      Executive Officer and President

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM LESCARDEN
INC'S FEBRUARY 28, 2001 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL LEGENDS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-2001
<CASH>                                          78,514
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    112,510
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               203,524
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 203,524
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          571,559
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,435
<OTHER-SE>                                   (390,470)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   203,524
<SALES>                                         28,332
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,332
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  427,107
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (398,775)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (398,775)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (398,775)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION




PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. 1350)




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the
undersigned officer of Global Beverages, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and
belief, that:




(1)           The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (the "Form
10-K") of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materials
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:  April
      8, 2010/s/ Lawrence LichterLawrence
      LichterChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

BRIAN PATRICK STREET,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:09cv407/RS-AK

BROWN, et al,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

O R D E R

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case, which was not reviewed pending receipt of an

initial filing fee. The case was not properly referred when the fee was paid, and therefore, review

has been delayed. However, upon review it is now clear that this matter should be transferred

because the suit is brought against defendants who reside at the Federal Correctional Institution

in Littleton, Colorado, and as such this case should be transferred to the United States District

Court for Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 85. 

A federal district court has the authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to transfer a case to

another district or division "in which it could have been brought." A court may raise the issue of

defective venue sua sponte, but should not dismiss an improperly filed case for lack of venue

without giving the parties an opportunity to respond. Lipofsky v. New York State Workers

Comp. Bd., 861 F.2d 1257, 1259 (11th Cir. 1988). The Lipofsky court did not place the same

limitations on the court's ability to transfer a case to the appropriate forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1404(a). See Lipofsky, 861 F.2d at 1259, n. 2. Thus, this case should be transferred rather than

dismissed. 
Page 2 of 2

IT IS ORDERED that this case is transferred to the United States District Court for

Colorado. 

ORDERED on August 16, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 5:09-cv-00407-RS-AK