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

 

**Certification**

I, John Swallow, certify that:

 

(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K /A of New Jersey Mining Company.

(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 registrant 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 internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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

 

(d) Disclosed in this 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; and

(5) I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  April 4 , 2019

 

By /s/  John Swallow

John Swallow

Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Max W. Hillman, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Hillman Companies, 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 to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered 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,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15eand 15d-15e) for the registrant and we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; and  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: March 30, 2007 /s/ Max W. Hillman   Max W. Hillman   Chief Executive Officer
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 22

- 1723

_____________________________ G ORDON S HAVERS I II
, Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Meredith Charbula , Judge

. September 29, 2022

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , M AKAR , and B ILBREY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Gordon Shavers III, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service 

 National Institute for Occupational 

 Safety and Health 

 Robert A. Taft Laboratories

 4676 Columbia Parkway

 Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998 

 Phone: 513-533-6825 

 Fax: 513-533-6826 

SEC Tracking Number: 0067 

 

 March 8, 2007 

Peter M. Turcic, Director 

Division of Energy Employees Occupational 

 Illness Compensation 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Room C-4511 

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

Dear Mr. Turcic: 

On behalf of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and as 

required by 42 C.F.R. § 83.17(c), I am notifying you of the final effect of the HHS decision to 

designate a class of employees at the Allied Chemical Corp. Plant, Metropolis, Illinois, as 

an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On February 1, 2007, as 

provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following 

class of employees as an addition to the SEC: 

 Atomic Weapons employees who were monitored or should have been monitored for 

 exposure to ionizing radiation while working at Allied Chemical Corporation Plant in 

 Metropolis, Illinois, from January 1, 1959 through December 31, 1976, and who were 

 employed for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days or in 

 combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other 

 classes of employees in the Special Exposure Cohort. 

This designation became effective on March 3, 2007, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 

7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on March 3, 2007, members of this class of employees, 

defined as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC. 

 
 Sincerely, 

 Larry J. Elliott 

 Director 

 Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly report of Cemtrex, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QA for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Renato Dela Rama, principal financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Renato Dela RamaRenato Dela RamaPrincipal Financial OfficerSeptember 8, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

May 17, 2023

No. 04

- 23

- 00192

- CR

IN RE Marco Antonio GUARDIOLA TRINIDAD

Original Proceeding 1

ORDER

On March 6, 2023, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion for stay. Because relator has obtained the requested relief, the petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED as moot. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a). The stay imposed on Ma rch 8, 2023 is LIFTED

.

It is so ORDERED on May 17, 2023

.

_____________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 17th day of May, 2023

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz

, Clerk of Court

1 This pro ceeding arises out of Cause No. 10830CR , styled State of Texas v. Marco Antonio Guardiola Trinidad

, pending in the County Court
, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Todd Alexander Blomerth and the Honorable Susan D. Reed presiding.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0167

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

ALAN TODD RUFF,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 29, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 24 2020

06/24/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0167
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7847

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DARIUS KEITH RAINEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,

Chief District Judge. (CR-98-93; CA-05-310-3)

Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 10, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darius Keith Rainey, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,

United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Darius Keith Rainey seeks to appeal the district court's

order denying as successive his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rainey

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 18-0395

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

J CEE FELDE,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until September 16, 2020, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s reply brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

August 12 2020

08/12/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0395
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-31248

Summary Calendar

BHNO PARTNERS, LIMITED,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

CANTERBURY JOINT VENTURE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CV-2498)

May 1, 1997

Before WISDOM, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The defendant Canterbury Joint Venture appeals the district

court’s determination that the plaintiff BHNO Partners is the

rightful owner of all insurance proceeds paid by Allendale

Insurance Mutual Corporation under coverage provided by policy

number JU028 for casualty loss to certain mortgaged property. 
1 456 So.2d 599 (La. 1984).

2 First Nat. Bank of Houma v. Bailey, 583 So.2d 559, 563

(La. App. 3 Cir. 1991).

2

After de novo review, we find that, under the unambiguous terms

of the mortgage and Allendale policy, BHNO is entitled to the

insurance proceeds. Canterbury’s contention that Rushing v.

Dairyland Ins. Co.1 precludes BHNO from receiving the proceeds is

without merit. The Louisiana Deficiency Judgment Act’s

underlying purpose is to protect a debtor from an over-reaching

creditor.2 The provisions of the Louisiana Deficiency Judgment

Act and its underlying purpose are inapplicable to the instant

case. BHNO is not seeking a deficiency judgment against

Canterbury, but is instead seeking insurance proceeds from

Allendale. BHNO is entitled. The district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00087-CV

M. NEIL CUMMINGS, Appellant

V.

CLEO PATRICIA SHELBY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 102nd District Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13C0842-102

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

M. Neil Cummings, appellant, has filed a motion seeking to dismiss his appeal. Pursuant 

to Rule 42.1(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion is granted. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

We dismiss this appeal.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: October 8, 2013

Date Decided: October 9, 2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                       0001029850
<NAME>                           LORAL CYBERSTAR, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000
<CURRENCY>                                  US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          24,117
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,054
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,257
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               240,126
<PP&E>                                         839,075
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (88,549)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,684,287
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          287,165
<BONDS>                                        963,299
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     347,404
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,684,287
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               104,882
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  167,073
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (100)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              62,441
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (124,532)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (10,357)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (114,175)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (114,175)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0







</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                              Sonic Foundry, Inc.
                           Annual Report on Form 10-K
                     For the Year Ended September 30, 2002




 EXHIBIT 99.2

          CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Sonic Foundry, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certifies that:

     (1) the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended September
30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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.

Dated:  December 27, 2002


                                  /s/ Kenneth A. Minor
                                  ------------------------------
                                  Name:  Kenneth A. Minor
                                  Title: Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MONIQUE BORK, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

JERRY HOWELL, Warden; ATTORNEY

GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF

NEVADA; DWIGHT NEVEN, Warden, 

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 20-15461

D.C. No. 

2:16-cv-01235-APG-VCF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 30, 2021

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Nevada state prisoner Monique Bork appeals the district court’s denial of her

28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging her conviction by guilty plea

and her sentence of 96–240 months. Bork pleaded guilty to abuse and child

FILED

SEP 7 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
neglect after her child died from incapacitating injuries suffered at the hands of her

then boyfriend, Edward Thompson, and which she did not report. Bork pleaded

guilty to this lesser charge in exchange for the state’s dismissing a charge of

murder.

This court granted a certificate of appealability on two claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel. We now affirm.

Bork first claims counsel should have moved to dismiss the charges on

statute of limitations grounds. Nevada tolls the statute of limitations for felonies

“committed in a secret manner” until “discovery of the offense.” Nev. Rev. Stat.

§ 171.095(1)(a). Although Bork contends her counsel did not examine the statute

of limitations issue before advising her to plead guilty to child abuse, Bork has not

produced any evidence of what her trial counsel advised or why. And even if

Bork’s counsel had pursued a statute of limitations defense, there was little

guarantee of success. As the state court of appeals concluded, had counsel moved

to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, “the [s]tate would have been able to

present evidence she committed the offense in a secretive manner that tolled the

statute of limitations.” The state court reasonably determined that Bork failed to

show counsel’s performance was deficient or prejudicial. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d);

Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 105 (2011).

2
Bork also claims counsel should have refused the plea and asserted a defense

that Bork’s statements did not amount to an admission to the crime charged. This

argument appears to assume, erroneously, that the only evidence the state would be

able to introduce at trial consisted of Bork’s statements. There was other evidence

the state could have introduced and that counsel could have reasonably anticipated,

including Bork’s knowledge of Thompson’s drug usage and her delay in seeking

medical care. It was reasonable for counsel to recommend accepting a plea at an

early stage in order to present a more favorable record at sentencing.

The district court’s judgment denying the petition is AFFIRMED.

3
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

TANG, LAWRENCE, and COGLEY

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Arthur B. SANDERS III

Machinist’s Mate First Class (E-6), U.S. Navy 

Appellant

No. 202000060

Decided: 8 June 2020

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: 

Kimberly J. Kelly

Sentence adjudged 9 December 2019 by a special court-martial convened at Naval Base Kitsap, Bremerton, Washington, consisting of a 

military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment:

reduction to E-5, confinement for 60 days, and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant: 

Lieutenant Commander Jacqueline M. Leonard, JAGC, USN

For Appellee:

Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).
United States v. Sanders, NMCCA No. 202000060

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred. Articles 59, 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 

§§ 859, 866. 

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court