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, Una Ricketts, the Chief Executive Officer of REII Incorporated, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of REII Incorporated;

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 Quarerly
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. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 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

      c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

      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 have identified for the
registrant's auditors 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; and

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including
any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.


Date:  November 9, 2004      s/s Una Ricketts - Chief Executive Officer
                             ------------------------------------------
                             Una Ricketts Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheets as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the Statements of Operation and the
Statements of Cash Flow for the three years ended December 31, 1996 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such annual report on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,211,545
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,114,232)
<INVENTORY>                                 17,743,453
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            37,712,276
<PP&E>                                     (1,403,481)
<DEPRECIATION>                                 832,181
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,169,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       34,102,663
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,344
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,070,360
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                39,169,105
<SALES>                                     80,631,527
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            80,631,527
<CGS>                                       71,949,827
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,410,286
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (84,584)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,336,182
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,980,184)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,980,184)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Washington Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth.

(Decided February 1, 1916.)

Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court.

Taxation — Non-Resident Life Insurance Company — Tax Upon Premiums. — Upon tbe authority of the opinion in the case of Illinois Life Insurance Co. v. Commonwealth, this day decided, former opinion withdrawn and judgment reversed with direction to dismiss petition.

FRANK EWING, KOHN, BINGHAM, SLOSS *&*SPINDLE and J. C. W. BECKHAM for appellant.

JAMES GARNETT, Attorney General, and JOHN A. JUDY for appellee.

*204Opinion op tbcb Coubt by

Judge Clarke

— Granting petition for rehearing, .-withdrawing former opinion and reversing.

To conform to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of the Provident Savings Life Assurance Society v. Kentucky, 239 U. S., —, 36 Sup. Ct., 34, 60 L. Ed., —, and for the reasons stated by this court in its opinion in the case of the Illinois Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, this day rendered, the petition for rehearing is granted; the opinion heretofore rendered in this case, is withdrawn, and the judgment of the lower court herein is reversed with directions -to dismiss- appellee’s petition.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 12, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00159

- CV

Ronald MENSCH, Appellant

v.

STATE FARM & CASUALTY COMPANY,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010CI02326 Honorable Stephani Walsh, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record was due May 4, 2015, but it was not filed. On May 6, 2015, the clerk filed a notification of late record stating the record was not filed because appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee to prepare the record and appellant is not entitled to the record without paying the fee.

W e order appellant, Ronald F. Mensch, to provide written proof to this court on or before May 22, 2015, t hat either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements satisfactory to the clerk have been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitl ed to the clerk’s record without prepayment of the clerk’s fee. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1 and 35.3(a). If appellant fails to file such proof within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 12th day of May, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
No. 2,018.

#### FINLEN, Appellant, *v.*HEINZE et al., Respondents.

*Appeal from District*Court, *Silver Boiv County; William*Clancy, *Judge.*

Application for an injunction.

Decided January 15, 1904.

Per Curiam.

The application for an injunction herein is hereby denied.

Mr. Justice, Milburn, not having heard the argument herein, takes no part in making this order.

Mr. Chief Justice Brantlt:

My view is this: I did not think it worth while to' consider the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the hearing for this reason: that before this court can be moved to issue an injunction to' preserve the subject-*574matter of the muse in controversy there must be presented, to the court the record in the case, and the record must at least show that there is a probability that this court will reverse the judgment of the court below; because the principle must be recognized that where a party was successful in the court below, he is entitled to enjoy that success until the action of the court below has been reversed; that this: court will issue an injunction only when it is probable that that court was wrong. There is nothing presented to. this court but the judgment roll. Upon the showing of the judgment roll there is no< apparent error. The only question upon the face of the judgment roll is whether or not the findings of the court below sustain the decree. I take this view of the record in the case. A statement on motion for a new trial cannot be used in this court at all until it has been used by the court below, that is, there must be a motion for a new trial in the court below, and that must have been passed upon before this court can make any use of the statement used in support of it. Section 1736 to my mind clearly implies this.

*Mr. W. W. Dixon, Mr. A. J. Shores, Mr. O. F. Kelley,*and *Messrs. Forbis & Fvans,*for Appellant.

*Mr. John J. McEatton,*for Respondents.

Mr. Justice Hollo wav:

So. far1 as I am concerned, I feel this way about it. There was one matter set forth in the application for injunction that was controverted, that is that the-defendants in *Finlen*v. *Ileinze*were operating or causing to he operated the Minnie Healy mine. That being controverted, the burden was upon plaintiff to prove that that contention was true. I do not think he did that; the witnesses he called rather disproved that contention. That was my view! in this matter. And further, I feel that as these matters of injunction, under the rules of this court, are entitled to advanaeement, until the moving party has asked this court to1 advance and set the canse for hearing, he is not in very good position to ask for an injunction *pendente lite.*
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 26749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11235]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2157-188]


Public Utility District No.1 of Snohomish County, WA; Notice of 
Technical Conference for the Jackson Hydroelectric Project Settlement 
Agreement

May 5, 2010.
    On October 14, 2009, the Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish 
County, Washington (District), on behalf of itself, the city of 
Everett, the city of Sultan, Tulalip Tribe, American Whitewater, and 
six State and Federal agencies, filed a comprehensive settlement 
agreement (Settlement) and Joint Explanatory Statement for the 
relicensing of the Jackson Hydroelectric Project. On May 5, 2010, staff 
issued a draft environmental assessment analyzing the terms and 
conditions of the Settlement.
    Commission staff will hold a technical conference to discuss the 
proposed license articles submitted by the District as part of its 
Settlement and the Commission's draft environmental assessment.
    The technical conference will be held on Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 
beginning at 9 a.m. (PST). The technical conference will be held at the 
District's Electric Building Headquarters located at 2320 California 
Street, Everett, Washington.
    For further information, contact David Turner at (202) 502-6091, or 
by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2044415649440e5455524e455260464552430e474f56"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c6a2a7b0afa2e8b2b3b4a8a3b486a0a3b4a5e8a1a9b0">[email protected]</span></a>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11235 Filed 5-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2



                                  CERTIFICATION


        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Bowater
Incorporated (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge,
that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: May 10, 2004                           /s/ David G. Maffucci
                                              ----------------------------
                                              Name:  David G. Maffucci
                                              Title: Chief Financial Officer



        The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
Form of Amendment (No.2) to Escrow Agreement



 Exhibit 10.3 
 [Macquarie Letterhead] 
 May 22, 2009 
  


			
	 Jane Labouliere
	 	Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc.
	 Vice President
	 	Macquarie Equipment Leasing Fund, LLC
	 Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
	 	225 Franklin St., 17th Floor
	 10 Orms Street, Suite 325
	 	Boston, MA 02110
	 Providence, RI 02904
	 	

 Re: Escrow Agreement 
 Dear Ms. Labouliere and Others: 
 We refer to the Escrow Agreement between Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
(“Wells Fargo”), Macquarie Asset Management Inc. (“MAMI”), Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc. and Macquarie Equipment Leasing Fund, LLC dated February 2, 2009, as amended by letter agreement dated March 30, 2009 (the
“Agreement”). 
 You are requested to sign and return a copy of this letter to MAMI. By doing so, you will be evidencing your acceptance of the
following amendment to the Agreement, effective as of the date of this letter. Section 3(a) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
 On or before the commencement of the offering, the Manager shall establish an escrow account with the Escrow Agent (the “Escrow
Account”). Until such time that the Manager receives and accepts subscriptions for the Minimum Offering, MCUSA, the Selling Dealers, the Manager and the Fund shall deposit the Subscription Funds with the Escrow Agent no later than noon of the
next business day after receipt, unless the subscription agreement and Subscription Funds are first forwarded to another of the receiving party’s offices for internal supervisory review (which shall take place within the aforementioned time
period), in which event such other office shall complete its review and forward such subscription agreement and Subscription Funds to the Escrow Agent no later than noon of the next business day after its receipt thereof. The Subscription Funds
shall be accompanied by a schedule listing (a) the name, address, tax identification number and such other information as the Escrow Agent may require and (b) the number of Shares purchased by each Subscriber and the amount of Subscription
Funds being deposited with the Escrow Agent for each Subscriber (the “Schedule of Subscribers”). The Schedule of Subscribers shall indicate whether the consideration received from each Subscriber was in the form of a check, draft or money
order. Payment for each subscription for Shares shall be made to “Wells Fargo Bank as Escrow Agent for Macquarie Equipment Leasing Fund, LLC.” 
  

	
	Yours sincerely,
	
	Macquarie Asset Management Inc.
	
	  
	 Duncan Edghill
 Director, Macquarie Asset Management
Inc.
 Date: May 22, 2009










	
	ACCEPTED:
	
	Macquarie Equipment Leasing Fund, LLC
	
	  
	 Duncan Edghill
 Director, Macquarie Asset Management
Inc.
 Date: May 22, 2009

	
	Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc.
	
	  
	 Tom O’Neill
 Senior Vice President
 Date: May 22, 2009

	
	Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
	
	  
	 Jane E. Labouliere
 Vice President
 Date: May 22, 2009
#### Rochford v. School Dist. No. 6, Lyman County, *et al.*

1. Rev. Pol. Code, § 2366, declares that no contract binding on a school district shall be made in any ease except by the school board or board of education, acting as such at a regular meeting or regularly called special meeting, excepting contracts for the employment of teachers. Held, that a school warrant issued in violation of the statute is void.

2. There can be no recovery against a guarantor of a school warrant until presented to the treasurer as required by statute and payment refused.

(Opinion filed May 31, 1905.)

*436Appeal from circuit court, Minnehaha county; Hon. Joseph W. Jones, Judge.

Action by G. E. Rochford against School District No. 6, Lyman county, and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*Joe Kirby,*for appellant.

*B, G. Huddle*and *J. G, Barline,*for respondents.

Fuller, J.

The undisputed evidence offered at the trial of this action to recover the amount of a purported school warrant offered and received in evidence conclusively shows the same to be wholly without consideration and void as to the school district, because issued in plain violation of section 2366 of the Revised Political Code. Capital Bank of St. Paul v. School Dist., 1 N. D. 479, 48 N. W. 363. Assuming, as contended by counsel for appellant, that respondent Bills guaranteed the payment, there could be no recovery against him, in any event, until the warrant was presented to the treasurer as required by statute and payment refused. Greely v. McCoy, 3 S. D. 218, 52 N. W. 1050. That this was neither done nor attempted is conceded, and the trial court was fully justified in directing a verdict in favor of the defendants.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Mario Alberto Siller, * From the 4 2nd District

Court of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 25561A

.

V s. No. 11

- 15

- 00016

- CR * August 11 , 2016

The State of Texas, * Opinion by Bailey , J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and we remand this cause to

the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

.
#### Commonwealth v. Gold & Stock Telegraph Company, etc.

(Decided January 27, 1915.)

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court (Chancery Branch, First Division).

Taxation — Action by Revenue Agent to Recover Taxes on Omitted Assessment. — In view of the ruling of this court in Commonwealth, by etc. v. Ewald Iron Co., 153 Ky., 116, that of the circuit court in dismissing, at the cost of the revenue agent, this action brought by him to recover taxes on property claimed to have been omitted from assessment, was error.

MATT J. HOLT and A. SCOTT BULLITT for appellant.

RICHARDS & HARRIS, GEORGE H. FEARONS and FRANCIS N. WHITNEY for appellees.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Settle

Beversing.

*362This appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit court, chancery branch, first division, which dismissed,, without prejudice and at the cost of the relator, this actiop brought by the latter in the name of the Commonwealth against appellees for the recovery of taxes on property alleged to have been omitted from assessment, is a companion case to those of Commonwealth of Kentucky, by etc., v. Standard Oil Co., 162 Ky., 149, and Commonwealth of Kentucky, by etc., v. Intersouthern Life Ins. Co., etc., 162 Ky., 228, and is controlled by the' opinions therein. It was held by the circuit court in this case, as in those, that the dismissal of the action at the cost of the revenue agent, was authorized by Chapter 15, Article 2, Section 5, page 396, Acts of 1912, because of the failure of the revenue agent to prosecute it with due diligence.

In view of the construction given the act, *supra,*in Commonwealth v. Ewald Iron Co., 150 Ky., 116, we must hold in this case, as was done in Commonwealth of Kentucky, by etc., v. Standard Oil Co., and Commonwealth of Kentucky, by etc., v. Intersouthern Life Ins. Co., *supra,*that the judgment appealed from is erroneous.

For the reasons indicated the judgment is reversed and cause remanded for proceedings in conformity with the opinion in the Ewald case.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 13, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132007 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

HOME-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 132007 

 COA: 259233 

Van Buren CC: 04-051971-CK 

DOUGLAS CRAIG BROWN, 

 Defendant,
 and 

ROBERT KIMBRO, Personal Representative of 

the Estate of Lawrence Grand, Deceased,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 27, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

t1206 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 13, 2006 

 Clerk
Order filed December 09, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00713-CR

____________

BYRON KEITH HARMON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1355981

ORDER

This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State's Exhibit 3, a 

video lineup.
The clerk of the 351st District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of this 

court the original of State's Exhibit 3, a video lineup, on or before December 19, 

2013. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this 

original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, 

upon completion of inspection, to return the original of State's Exhibit 3, a video 

lineup, to the clerk of the 351st District Court.

PER CURIAM