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



CERTIFICATION



I, Jeff Ritchie, certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Independent Film Development Corporation;



(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) The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



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



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



(d) 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) The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our 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.



Dated:  February 15, 2011



/s/  Jeff Ritchie

Chief Executive Officer and Director
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DEAN DELLINGER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 3:10cv323/RS/EMT

INTERNATIONAL RARITIES CORPORATION,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The district court referred this matter to the undersigned to conduct any necessary hearings

and to enter a report and recommendation on Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (see docs. 71, 72). 

Plaintiff’s motion was filed and served May 23, 2011, making Defendant’s responsive memorandum

due no later than June 6, 2011 (see N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(C)(1) (stating that a “party opposing a

motion shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the motion in which to file and serve

a responsive memorandum”). As of today’s date, June 13, 2011, Defendant has failed to file a

responsive memorandum. 

Defendant shall have through Friday, June 17, 2011, in which to show cause why Plaintiff’s

motion for sanctions, which includes requests to strike all of Defendant’s defenses and to enter

default judgment against Defendant on all counts (leaving for trial only the amount of damages),

should not be granted. If Defendant does not timely respond, on June 20, 2011, this court shall issue

a report to the district court recommending granting Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions due to

Defendant’s failure to file a responsive memorandum (see N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(C)(1), which

provides that the failure to file a responsive memorandum may be sufficient cause to grant the

motion). Although the motion contains a Local Rule 7.1(B) certificate stating that counsel for

Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant conferred prior to the filing of the motion and could not reach

an accord on the issues presented, in the event Defendant’s position has altered and it now does not

Case 3:10-cv-00323-RS-EMT Document 73 Filed 06/13/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

oppose the relief sought by Plaintiff, it should so advise the court within the time allotted. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Defendant shall have through Friday, June 17, 2011, in which to show cause why Plaintiff’s

motion for sanctions, which includes requests to strike all of Defendant’s defenses and to enter

default judgment against Defendant on all counts (leaving for trial only the amount of damages),

should not be granted. Defendant’s failure to file a responsive memorandum will result in a

recommendation pursuant to N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(C)(1) to the district court that Plaintiff’s motion

for sanctions be granted. If Defendant no longer opposes the relief sought in the motion, by June

17, 2011, it should so advise the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of June 2011.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

 ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No.: 3:10cv323/RS/EMT

Case 3:10-cv-00323-RS-EMT Document 73 Filed 06/13/11 Page 2 of 2
# C_2010027EN.01000302.xml

| 3.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5689 — Bominflot/SBI Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 27/03

On 18 December 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5689. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5689. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DOUGLAS McDANIEL,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11cv14/RS-CJK

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER

The relief requested by Plaintiff’s Motion For Order Enlarging Time For 

Response To Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. 27) is granted.

ORDERED on September 7, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00014-RS-GRJ Document 28 Filed 09/07/11 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

GEOFFREY K. LOTT, 

Plaintiff,

v. 3:10cv474/RV/CJK

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

__________________________________________________________________

O R D E R

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

recommendation dated December 12, 2011. The plaintiff 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, 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 applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental

security income is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of January, 2012. 

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00474-RV-CJK Document 11 Filed 01/11/12 Page 1 of 1
DISMISS and Opinion Filed June 16, 2023 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-23-00300-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF C.H., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-20-07919

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen , III, Garcia, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Garcia Appellant appeals from the trial court’ s order transferring jurisdiction of the underlying suit to Bonner County, Idaho pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN . § 152.207. We questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal because an order transferring jurisdiction under the UCCJEA is reviewable by mandamus. See In re Alanis , 350 S.W.3d 322, 324 (Tex. App.—San Antoni o 2011, orig. proceeding). At the Court’s direction, appellant filed a letter brief. Appella nt agrees that the proper remedy is by mandamus and not direct appeal.–2– Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id ; T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 42.3(a).

230300F.P05 /Dennise Garcia/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF C.H., A CHILD

No. 05-23-00300-CV On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-20-07919. Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. Justices Pedersen, III and Kennedy participating.

In accordance with this Court’s op inion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that appellee Sara Ann Hodge s recover her costs of this appeal from appellant Bradley Francis Goodell.

Judgment entered June 16, 2023.
# C_2011005EN.01000101.xml

| 8.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6042 — Brose/SEW/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 5/01

On 21 December 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M6042. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M6042. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      21,995,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,495,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 11,451,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            50,063,000
<PP&E>                                      40,792,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,696,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              75,159,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,170,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,281,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  48,482,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                75,159,000
<SALES>                                    129,605,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           129,605,000
<CGS>                                      112,781,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,780,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,434,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,573,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,861,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,861,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .89
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

KEITH J. WILSON and Wife,

SHERRY WILSON,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv296/RS-CJK

MAYINAMPATI M. REDDY and

PULI GOPAL REDDY,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before me is Stipulation For Dismissal (Doc. 16).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

2. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on April 4, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

In Admiralty 

IN THE MATTER OF YOGI DAWG, INC.,

AS OWNER/OPERATOR OF THE F/V

RAW DAWG, PETITIONING FOR Case No. 5:11-cv-54/RS-GRJ

EXONERATION FROM DAMAGES OR

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

__________________________________/ 

NOTICE OF COMPLAINT FOR EXONERATION FROM 

OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

NOTICE IS GIVEN that Yogi Dawg, Inc. and the F/V RAW DAWG have filed a 

Complaint pursuant to 46 U.S.C. §30501, et seq, claiming the right to exoneration from or 

limitation of liability for all claims allegedly resulting from the incident and/or injuries 

occasioned on or about January 6, 2011 when the F/V RAW DAWG allegedly caught on fire 

while docked at Greg Abrams Seafood in Panama City, Florida, all as is more fully set forth in the 

Complaint.

ALL PERSONS ASSERTING CLAIMS with respect to which the Complaint seeks 

limitation are admonished to file their respective claims with the Clerk of Court for the United 

States District Court, Northern District of Florida, and to serve on the attorneys for petitioner, 

Harris & Rufty, L.L.C., 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2710, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130, a copy 

thereof on or before the 25th day of April, 2011 at 5 o'clock p.m., or be defaulted.

PERSONAL ATTENDANCE is not required.
ANY CLAIMANT DESIRING TO CONTEST either the right of exoneration from or the 

right to limitation of liability shall file and serve an Answer to the Complaint unless his claim has 

included an Answer, all as is required by Rule F of the Supplemental Rules of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure for certain admiralty and maritime claims.

ORDERED on March 15, 2011. 

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
# C_2009125EN.01003001.xml

| 5.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 125/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 125/30

---

Calls for proposals under the work programme for 2009 of the Information and Communication Technologies Policy Support Programme as part of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007 to 2013)

2009/C 125/11

Notice is hereby given of the launch of the call for proposals under the work programme for 2009 of the Information and Communication Technologies Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP) as part of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme — (2007 to 2013).

Proposals are invited for the following call: CIP-ICT PSP-2009-3bis.

Call documentation including content, deadline and budget is given in the call texts which are published on the ICT PSP website: http://ec.europa.eu/ict_psp

---
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)






In connection with the Quarterly Report of Strategic American Oil Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Jeremy Glenn Driver, Chief Executive Officer of Strategic American Oil Corporation, does hereby certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to his 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.





Date: December 15, 2010




By:
/s/ Jeremy Glenn DriverJeremy Glenn DriverChief Executive OfficerPrincipal Executive Officer







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                      20,916,136
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,240,832
<ALLOWANCES>                                   106,405
<INVENTORY>                                  4,991,918
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,042,481
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          457,253
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,585,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,042,481
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               499,872
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               529,536
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,664)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (29,664)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (29,664)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

PAUL ALMER BRANCH,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv516-RH/WCS

KURT S. BROWNING et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s second report and

recommendation, ECF No. 8. The plaintiff has filed no objections to the second

report and recommendation, but in response to the magistrate judge’s first report

and recommendation, ECF No. 5, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration,

ECF No. 10. The motion for reconsideration sets out the plaintiff’s position in a

manner making clear that he has the same objections to the second report and

recommendation. I have reviewed the issues de novo.

The plaintiff seeks an award of damages for being held in custody on a state

sentence longer than would have been allowed under a later decision of the Florida

Supreme Court. He has been released from custody and does not seek injunctive
Page 2 of 2

relief. The plaintiff has named as defendants only the State of Florida, its former

governor, and its secretary of state. The plaintiff makes no claim that the governor

or secretary state had any personal role in his incarceration. His claim against them

thus plainly is only an official-capacity claim. The Eleventh Amendment bars a

damages award in federal court against either the state itself or a state officer in the

officer’s official capacity, precisely as the second report and recommendation

concludes. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

The second report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the

court’s opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “This case is DISMISSED

based on the Eleventh Amendment.”

SO ORDERED on February 25, 2011.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge 

Case No: 4:10cv516-RH/WCS