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

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Timothy M.Marquez, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-Q/A of Venoco, Inc. (“Registrant”);

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                 The Registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

a)               designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

b)              evaluated theeffectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)               disclosed in thisreport any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theRegistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The Registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

a)               all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)              anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| /s/ TIMOTHY M. MARQUEZ                  |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| Timothy M.  Marquez                     |
| *Chief  Executive Officer and Chairman* |
| November 21,  2005                 |

 

  

----
1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 121,471

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

In the Matter of the Marriage of

DESTINY D. PLOWMAN,

Appellee,

and

CASEY L. PLOWMAN,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Stevens District Court; BRADLEY E. AMBROSIER, judge. Opinion filed April 24, 

2020. Affirmed.

Michael P. Whalen, of Law Office of Michael P. Whalen, of Wichita, for appellant.

No appearance by appellee.

Before HILL, P.J., BUSER and BRUNS, JJ.

PER CURIAM: Casey (Father) and Destiny (Mother) Plowman divorced in 2018. In 

2019, the district court granted Mother primary residency of their daughter, J.P. Father 

appeals and contests the residency ruling.

Our standard of review provides that the paramount consideration in making these 

decisions is the child's welfare and best interests. In light of the district court's unique 

vantage point of what is often an emotionally charged situation, an appellate court 

generally will not overturn these decisions unless the district court abused its discretion. 
2

See Cheney v. Poore, 301 Kan. 120, 128, 339 P.3d 1220 (2014); see also Frazier v. 

Goudschaal, 296 Kan. 730, 755, 295 P.3d 542 (2013) (co-parenting agreement). 

Discretion may be abused in three ways: (1) when the ruling is based on an error of law, 

(2) when the ruling is based on an error of fact, or (3) the ruling was arbitrary, fanciful, or 

unreasonable. Wiles v. American Family Life Assurance Co., 302 Kan. 66, 74, 350 P.3d 

1071 (2015).

Challenges to specific factual findings in support of these determinations are 

reviewed to assure that they are supported by substantial competent evidence and that 

they support the court's legal conclusions. See In re Marriage of Vandenberg, 43 Kan. 

App. 2d 697, 704, 229 P.3d 1187 (2010). This court may not reweigh evidence, pass on 

witness credibility, or redetermine questions of fact. 43 Kan. App. 2d at 705.

We have carefully read the record on appeal. We have also considered Father's 

appellate arguments in light of the detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law made 

by Judge Bradley E. Ambrosier in his 16-page journal entry memorializing his ruling. 

Based upon our review, we determine that no reversible error of law appears in the 

district court's awarding Mother the primary residency of J.P.

Accordingly, the district court's ruling is affirmed under Supreme Court Rule 

7.042(b)(2), (3), (5) and (6) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48).
CORE/3505308.0002/142169743.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Carrie M. Francis (020453)

Stefan M. Palys (024752) 

Michael Vincent (029864)

STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4584 

Tel: (602) 279-1600 

Fax: (602) 240-6925 

Email: carrie.francis@stinson.com

 stefan.palys@stinson.com

 michael.vincent@stinson.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jeremy Thacker, No. 2:18-cv-00063-PHX-DJH

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 

SERVICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL 

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

Plaintiff,

v.

GPS Insight, LLC; Robert J. Donat, 

Individually and as Trustee of The 

Robert Donat Living Trust Dated April 

19, 2017; 

Defendants.

Defendants hereby give notice, pursuant to General Order 17-08, of service upon 

Plaintiff of Defendants’ Eleventh Supplemental Disclosure Statement by e-mail on 

August 29, 2018. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29th day of August, 2018. 

STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP 

By: /s/ Michael Vincent 

Carrie M. Francis

Stefan M. Palys 

Michael Vincent

1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4584 

Attorneys for Defendants
2 

CORE/3505308.0002/142169743.1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on August 29, 2018, I caused the foregoing document to be 

filed electronically with the Clerk of Court through ECF; and that ECF will send an enotice of the electronic filing to: 

Kraig J. Marton 

Jeffrey A. Silence 

Jaburg & Wilk, P.C. 

3200 N. Central Avenue, 20th Fl 

Phoenix, AZ 85012 

kjm@jaburgwilk.com 

jxs@jaburgwilk.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Timothy B. O’Connor 

Schneider & Onofry, PC 

365 East Coronado Road 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004 

toconnor@soarizonalaw.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Donat 

/s/ C. Roundtree
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATIONS
      OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. § 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**§
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kandi Technologies, Corp.
      (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Hu
      Xiaoming, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
      of
      the Company, and Zhu Xiaoying, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
      and
      Accounting Officer) of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
      best of his knowledge, that:





(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.





/s/
                Hu XiaomingName:
            Hu
                XiaomingTitle:
            President
                and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
            August 14,
                2008/s/
                Zhu XiaoyingName:
            Zhu
                XiaoyingTitle:
            Chief
                Financial OfficerDate:
            August 14,
                2008





This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Robert L. Edwards, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Synova Healthcare Group, Inc.;

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. The registrant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 registrant 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 registrant, 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;

b) [Intentionally omitted].

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our 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.



|                                           |  |  |  |                   
|------------------------------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------
|/s/ Robert L. Edwards                      |  |  |  |                   
|Robert L. Edwards, Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  | Date: May 17, 2007
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 1 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 2 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 3 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 4 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 5 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 6 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 7 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 8 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 9 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 10 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 11 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 12 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 13 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 14 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 15 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 16 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 17 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 18 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 19 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 20 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 21 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 22 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 23 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 24 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 25 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 26 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 27 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 28 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 29 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 30 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 31 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 32 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 33 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 34 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 35 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 36 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 37 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 38 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 39 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 40 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 41 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 42 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 43 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 44 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 45 of 46
Case 4:18-cv-00040-CKJ-PSOT Document 8 Filed 07/23/18 Page 46 of 46
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in 5THCIR.R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60627

(Summary Calendar)

LOUIS L. COGHLAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:96-CV-81-LA

May 28, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Louis L. Coghlan appeals from a judgment affirming the decision of the Commissioner of

Social Security denying his claim for disability insurance benefits. He argues that the Commissioner

erred in relying on the medical-vocational guidelines rather than the testimony of the vocational

expert and also in determining that Coghlan’stestimony was not credible. He further argues that the

Commissioner’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. 
2

We have reviewed the record and the briefs ofthe parties, and we AFFIRM for essentially the

reasonsset forth by the magistrate judge and adopted bythe district court. See Coghlan v. Apfel, No.

4:96-CV-81-LA (S.D. Miss. Aug. 21, 1997).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.2 Amendment No.1 to Cavalry Bancorp, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan


    Exhibit
      10.2

    


    


    AMENDMENT
      NO. 1 TO CAVALRY BANCORP, INC.

    1999
      STOCK OPTION PLAN

    


    


    WHEREAS,
      the in connection with the merger of Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc., a
      Tennessee corporation (the "Company") with Cavalry Bancorp, Inc., a Tennessee
      corporation ("Cavalry") outstanding options to purchase the common stock of
      Cavalry pursuant to the terms of the Cavalry Bancorp, Inc. 1999 Stock Option
      Plan (the "Plan") were automatically converted into options to purchase the
      common stock of the Company pursuant to the terms Plan; and 

     

    WHEREAS,
      pursuant to Section 13 of the Plan, the Company's Board of Directors has
      retained the right to amend the Plan; and

    


    WHEREAS,
      the Company's Board of Directors now desires to amend the Plan;

    


    NOW,
      THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the premises and by resolution of the Company's
      Board of Directors, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

    


    1. Section
      6
      of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
      following:

    “Adjustments
      Upon Changes in Capitalization. In the event of any change in the outstanding
      Shares subsequent to the effective date of the Plan by reason of any
      reorganization, recapitalization, stock split, extraordinary stock or cash
      dividend, capital distribution, combination or exchange of shares, merger,
      consolidation or any change in the corporate structure or Shares of the
      Corporation, the maximum aggregate number and class of shares and exercise
      price
      of the Award, if any, as to which Awards may be granted under the Plan and
      the
      number and class of shares and exercise price of the Award, if any, with respect
      to which Awards have been granted under the Plan shall be equitably and
      proportionately adjusted by the Committee, whose determination shall be
      conclusive. Except as otherwise provided herein, any Award which is adjusted
      as
      a result of this Section 6 shall be subject to the same terms and conditions
      as
      the original Award." 

    


    2. Except
      as
      expressly stated herein, all other portions of the Plan remain in full force
      and
      effect.

    


    3. This
      Amendment No. 1 to the Cavalry Bancorp 1999 Stock Option Plan is effective
      this
      19th day of September, 2006.

     

    PINNACLE
      FINANCIAL PARTNERS, INC.

    


    By: 
      /s/
      Hugh M. Queener

    Name:
      Hugh
      M. Queener 

    Title:
      Secretary
      to the Board
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-40892

OSCAR GABRIEL JIMINEZ; CHANDRA RAE JIMENEZ, Plaintiffs ! Appellees vs. WOOD COUNTY, TEXAS; SHERIFF DWAINE DAUGHERTY Defendants ! Appellants

- - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas

- - - - - ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion September 22, 2010, 5 Cir., 2010,

_____ F.3d

____ )

BEFORE: JONES, Chief Judge, KING, JOLLY, DAVIS, SMITH, GARZA,

BENAVIDES, STEWART, DENNIS, CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: A member of the court having requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active service and not disqualified having voted in favor, It is ordered that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D November 18, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk
#### Rayburn MOODY, Appellant, v. FOUNTENN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Respondent.

No. 69456.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

July 16, 1996.

Brown & Gavin, Gregg N. Johnson, Belle-ville, IL, for appellant.

Luke & Cunliff, P.C., Kenneth D. Alexander, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before PUDLOWSKI, P.J., and SIMON and HOFF, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission. The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s award of no compensation. Employee alleges the Commission erred in finding his witness not credible and in finding the testimony did not support his claim of an injury on the job. We have carefully considered the evidence in the record and find the award is supported by substantial and competent evidence. Therefore, we discern no jurisprudential value in issuing an extended legal opinion. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATIONS
      OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**UNDER
      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Aerogrow International Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”), as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Michael Bissonnette,
      Chief
      Executive 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:





(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 as of and
      for
      the period covered by this Report.





Date: August
                14, 2007
            By:
            /s/
                Michael BissonnetteMichael
                BissonnetteChief
                Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)
#### Donald STEWARD, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 56721.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 20, 1990.

John A. Klosterman, Columbia, for mov-ant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.

*854ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).