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

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF BOULDER CREEK
EXPLORATIONS, INC.

I, Ryan Gibson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Boulder Creek
Explorations, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and 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 us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

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

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing 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. The registrant's other certifying officers and 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 our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: September 14, 2006                /s/ Ryan Gibson
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Ryan Gibson
                                        Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 13**

 

----

**Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Avecia Group plc (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:

|        | 1.     | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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:  May 9, 2005 | By:    | /s/ Jeremy P. Scudamore  |
|               |   | Jeremy P. Scudamore      |
|               |   | Chief Executive Officer  |
|               |   |                     |
| Date:  May 9, 2005 | By:    | /s/ Derrick A. Nicholson |
|               |   | Derrick A. Nicholson     |
|               |   | Chief Financial Officer  |

 

----
ex-10_3.htm


    
      

      

    

    FedFirst Financial Corporation
10-Q


    


    EXHIBIT
10.3

    


    


    AMENDMENT
TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN

    RICHARD
B. BOYER AND EXCHANGE UNDERWRITERS, INC.

    


    WHEREAS, Richard B. Boyer (the
“Executive”) entered into an employment agreement with Exchange Underwriters,
Inc., a fully owned subsidiary of First Federal Savings Bank, effective June 1,
2008 (the “Employment Agreement”); and

    


    WHEREAS , the Board of
Directors of Exchange Underwriters, Inc. has resolved to amend the Employment
Agreement effective April 1, 2010, to reflect an adjustment in the Executive’s
annual base salary; and

    


    WHEREAS, the Employment
Agreement was further amended to provide that modifications to Executive’s base
salary in the future will not require an amendment to the Employment
Agreement.

    


    NOW, THEREFORE, the Executive
and Exchange Underwriters, Inc. hereby consent to the following:

    


    Effective
April 1, 2010, Section 4 of the Employment Agreement shall be deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the following new Section 4:

    


    “Exchange
agrees to pay Executive an annual salary of $167,500, payable in accordance with
the customary payroll practices of Exchange.   The Executive’s
annual salary, as the same may be modified from time to time, is referred to in
this Agreement as the “Base Salary.””

    


    


    
      	
              ATTEST:

            	 
      	 
      	
              EXCHANGE
      UNDERWRITERS, INC.

            	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
              /s/
      Diane Merrick

            	 
      	 
      	
              /s/
      John J. LaCarte

            	 
      
	
              Diane
      Merrick

            	 
      	 
      	
              John
      J. LaCarte

            	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	
              /s/
      Richard B. Boyer

            	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	
              Richard
      B. Boyer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-13773, 333-63967, 333-82323, 333-57362) of our report dated
March 19, 2001, except as to note 18, as to which the date is April 19, 2001,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Peerless
Systems Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
January 31, 2001.


                                                 ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Los Angeles, California
April 30, 2001
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 107 (Monday, June 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 30322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11881]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK F99/K99 Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: June 23, 2021.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Peter J. Kozel, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, 
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 7119, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, 301-
594-7271, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#94fffbf1eef1f8e4d4f9f5fdf8bafafdfcbaf3fbe2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4c2723293629203c0c212d252062222524622b233a">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 2, 2021.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-11881 Filed 6-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 6, 2018

No. 04-18-00384-CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Desiree Renee GOMEZ,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 5, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 542323

Honorable John Longoria, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The State’s brief was due July 18, 2018. On July 18, 2018, the State filed a motion, 

requesting an extension of time of fourteen (14) days. Thereafter, on July 24, 2018, the State 

filed its brief. Accordingly, we GRANT the State’s motion and deem the State’s brief as timely 

filed. Appellee is reminded her brief is due on or before August 23, 2018.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of August, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of Opus Resource Group, Inc., that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of the company on Form 10-KSB for
the period ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the companys
financial condition and results of operations.



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|March 30, 2004                          
|                                        
|/s/ James F. Gordon                     
|James F. Gordon, Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Reginald Sanders, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J., at trial and sentence), rendered on October 12, 1988, convicting defendant, after trial, of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10) and attempted robbery in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.10) and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 7 Vi to 15 years and 3 Vi to 7 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

We find that the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion for a severance. The record reveals that defendant and codefendant, Charles Bryant, committed a gunpoint robbery of a couple on the street. On the eve of trial, after a *Sandoval*hearing was held, defendant moved for a severance on the ground that if he took the stand, his codefendant, who was not bound by the Sandoval ruling, could cross-examine him as to all his prior convictions. This inhibited him from testifying on his own behalf.

The granting of severance motions is within the discretion of the trial court. "Where proof against the defendants is supplied by the same evidence only the most cogent reasons warrant a severance”. *(People v Bornholdt,*33 NY2d 75, 87.) When defendants are tried jointly, the *Sandoval*ruling with respect to one does not limit the scope of cross-examination by *328the other. *(People v McGee,*68 NY2d 328, 333.) In such a situation severance is granted where the defense of one defendant prejudices the other. Defendant has failed to state sufficient facts to demonstrate how his position was antagonistic to his codefendant. *(See, People v Martin,*154 AD2d 554.) Defendant’s defense of alibi in no way implicated Bryant. In claiming not to have been present, defendant was denying all knowledge of who committed the crime. If the codefendant impeached defendant’s alibi testimony it would only undermine his own defense theory of misidentification. Accordingly, defendant has failed to meet his burden of proving that the trial court abused its discretion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Rosenberger, Asch and Rubin, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 4, 2011 

Order 

 

February 4, 2011 

142526(26) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 142526 

v CoA: 298189 

 Wayne CC: 99-005393-FC 

JUSTLY ERNEST JOHNSON, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

__________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion for temporary admission to practice of 

Byron C. Lichstein is considered and it is granted.
EXHIBIT 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated February 23, 1998, except for Note 21, as to which
the date is March 12, 1998, included in NFO Worldwide, Inc.'s annual report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 into the Company's previously
filed Registration Statements, File Nos. 33-73516, 33-83002, 33-91936,
333-24297, 333-24299 and 333-38497.


/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
-----------------------
New York, New York,
March 26, 1998.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7806

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAMION BUNCH,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (4:15-cr-00087-RGD-LRL-1)

Submitted: February 23, 2021 Decided: March 1, 2021

Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damion Bunch, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Damion Bunch appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act 

of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. After reviewing the 

record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bunch’s

motion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020) (stating 

standard). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Bunch, No. 4:15-cr-00087-RGD-LRL-1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 19, 2020). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5542

Tianhai Electric North America:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Power Air Corporation (the "Company")
for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Kwang Seop Jung, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Seidal Bae, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies pursuant to  § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C.  § 1350) to the best of his knowledge:

(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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:	August 16, 2010 |  | /s/ Kwang Seop Jung Kwang Seop JungPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)



|                      |  |                                                                                              
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:	August 16, 2010 |  | /s/ Seidal Bae Seidal BaeChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer)

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### Jean M. Scheithauer, Respondent, v Gary L. Scheithauer, Appellant.

Mikoll, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Harris, J.), entered February 14, 1990 in Albany County, which, *inter alia,*granted defendant’s motion for temporary child support.

Defendant contends on this appeal that Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting him only $50 a week in temporary child support for his son. Plaintiff is employed by the State and earns $19,300 a year. Defendant is currently self-employed as a car mechanic and contends that he earns approximately $300 a week or $15,600 a year. In view of the fact that defendant has exclusive possession of the marital residence and plaintiff has been ordered to maintain health insurance for defendant and their son, as well as another child of the marriage, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in the award of temporary support of $50 a week.

Supreme Court has discretion in an action for divorce pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 240 to grant temporary orders affecting custody and support of children of the union and we are reluctant to interfere with its decision unless an *868abuse of discretion is indicated. Based upon a review of the record we perceive no reason to substitute our judgment for that of Supreme Court, which appropriately considered the factors enumerated in Domestic Relations Law § 240 in determining this application for temporary relief. The proper remedy for any perceived inequities is to proceed without delay to trial *(see, Schlosberg v Schlosberg,*130 AD2d 735, 736).

Further we find no abuse in Supreme Court’s denial of counsel fees incurred in connection with defendant’s motion brought pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 237 (b). Defendant contends that plaintiff has improperly seized marital and business assets of his. Plaintiff contends that defendant has been selling marital assets in anticipation of moving out of the State. The countercharges reflect the wisdom of Supreme Court in delaying counsel fees to the trial where the respective financial circumstances of the parties and any fault in diminution of assets can be scrutinized.

Finally, defendant’s request for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 was also properly denied. We cannot conclude on this record that plaintiff’s cross motion for temporary child support, counsel fees and for an order preventing defendant from disposing of marital assets was frivolous. Although the parties’ other child did not reside with plaintiff, plaintiff was allegedly contributing to her support. In addition, defendant by his own admission sold off some marital property. We deem the denial of sanctions appropriate.

Order affirmed, without costs. Casey, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### Earnest Dean McCURTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 48995.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 22, 1994.

Laura G. Martin, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Defendant appeals from the denial of a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing.

The denial of post-conviction relief is-affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).