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

                                                                                                      EXHIBIT 31

                                                  CERTIFICATION

I, W. JAMES SCILACCI, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-Q containing distribution or
servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of SCE
Funding LLC;

2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, 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 distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the trustee by
the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included
in these reports; and

4.   Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included in the report and required to be
delivered to the trustee in accordance with the terms of the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, and
except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has  complied with its servicing obligations and minimum
servicing standards under the servicing agreement.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by Southern
California Edison Company, as servicer and depositor.

Date:  March 15, 2004

                                              /s/ W. JAMES SCILACCI
                            --------------------------------------------------------
                                                W. JAMES SCILACCI
                                             Director and President
                                                 SCE Funding LLC
```
#### Glennon J. JOHNSON, Petitioner/Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, State of Missouri, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 65170.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 12, 1994.

*755Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for appellant.

Joel B. Eisenstein, Eisenstein, Smith & Burke, St. Charles, for respondent.

REINHARD, Judge.

The Director of Revenue (Director) appeals the trial court’s reversal of her revocation of petitioner’s driving privileges for refusing to submit to a chemical test. We reverse and remand.

Petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated on June 29, 1993. The Director revoked petitioner’s driver’s license, pursuant to § 577.041, RSMo Supp.1993, for refusal to submit to a chemical test.

The Director mailed a notice of revocation to petitioner on July 22,1993. On August 24, 1993, petitioner filed a petition for review in the trial court. On October 12, 1993, the Director filed a motion to dismiss, contending the court below lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to petitioner’s failure to timely file for review. The motion was not heard and, on October 21, 1993, the cause was confessed by an assistant prosecuting attorney, and the court entered an order reinstating petitioner’s driving privileges.

Petitions for review must be filed within thirty days of mailing of notice of revocation. § 536.110, RSMo 1986; *Ramey v. Director of Revenue,*865 S.W.2d 442, 443 (Mo.App.E.D.1993). Failure to do so deprives the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. *Ramey,*865 S.W.2d at 443. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or agreed to. *Pool v. Director of Revenue,*824 S.W.2d 515, 517 (Mo.App.1992). A confession of judgment does not vest a court with subject matter jurisdiction which is otherwise lacking. *Evans v. Director of Revenue,*871 S.W.2d 90, 92 (Mo.App.E.D.1994). When a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it can take no action other than to exercise its inherent power to dismiss. *Pool,*824 S.W.2d at 517.

Here, the notice of revocation was mailed on July 22,1993. Thirty days later is August 21. Because August 21, 1993 was a Saturday, the period for timely filing was extended to Monday, August 23. Rule 44.-01(a). The petition was filed on August 24, and, therefore, was untimely.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded with directions to dismiss the petition.

GARY M. GAERTNER, C.J., and CRAHAN, J., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 116 (Friday, June 14, 1996)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 30127]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15341]



      


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 116 / Friday, June 14, 1996 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 30127]]

                Presidential Determination No. 96-31 of June 6, 1996

                
Assistance Program for Russia

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                Pursuant to section 577 of the Foreign Operations, 
                Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations 
                Act, 1994 (Public Law 103-87), I hereby certify that 
                all of the armed forces of Russia and the Commonwealth 
                of Independent States have withdrawn from Latvia and 
                Estonia or that the status of those armed forces has 
                been otherwise resolved by mutual agreement of the 
                parties.

                You are authorized and directed to notify the Congress 
                of this certification and to publish it in the Federal 
                Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, June 6, 1996.

[FR Doc. 96-15341
Filed 6-13-96; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-M
#### Cecile SPEIGELMAN, Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent.

No. 68190.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

March 5, 1996.

John E. Toma, Jr., Newman, Goldfarb, Freyman & Stevens, Clayton, for appellant.

Robert J. Tomaso, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Cecile Speigelman, appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis dismissing her petition against respondent, University City School District, for breach of contract. We affirm.1

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find no error. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided solely for the use of the parties.

1

. Respondent school district’s motion to supplement the record and to dismiss the appeal is herein denied.
Exhibit
32.1





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 on Form 10-Q of SmartHeat Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Jun Wang, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §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.





Dated:
      August 10, 2009
                By:
                /s/
      Jun WangJun
      WangChief
      Executive Officer
                  (Principle Executive
      Officer)




This
certification accompanies each 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.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### Kevin BOWDEN, Patricia Bowden, and Ted Schmitz, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. PARNELL MENARD CORP., Defendant/Respondent.

No. 67757.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

April 2, 1996.

R. Andrew Beeny, Clayton, for appellants.

Daniel J. Briegel, Briegel, Baylard, P.C., Union, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Kevin Bowden, Patricia Bow-den, and Ted Schmitz (“homeowners”), appeal the judgment of the Circuit Court of Franklin County finding for respondent, Parnell Menard Corporation (“seller-builder”), on homeowners’ claims of breach of implied warranties of fitness for purpose. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find no error of law appears. As we further find no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision has been provided solely for the use of the parties involved.
#### Margaret BRODY, Appellant, v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 48162.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 17, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 28, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 15, 1994.

Arthur J. Ease, Rubins, Ease, Rubins, Cambiano & Bryant, Kansas City, for appellant.

Galen P. Beaufort, Asst. City Atty., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before SMART, P. J., and KENNEDY and ULRICH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Margaret Brody appeals an adverse judgment in a personal injury action.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
#### City of Cincinnati *v.*Bock.

(No. 23189

Decided November 4, 1931.)

*Mr. John D. Ellis,*city solicitor, *Mr. Harry J. Wernke, Mr. Ed F. Alexander, Mr. Jacob Hauptman*and *Mr. Frank T. Bartlett,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Fricke, Spiegel & Lemper,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Jones, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Robinson, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 830 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 121
111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 830

                          [Report No. 111-301]

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2442) to amend the 
  Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to 
  expand the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 14, 2009

    Ms. Matsui, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2442) to amend the 
  Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to 
  expand the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2442) to amend the 
Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to 
expand the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program, and for other 
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The 
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, 
shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without 
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
                                                 House Calendar No. 121

111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 830

                          [Report No. 111-301]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2442) to amend the 
  Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to 
  expand the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 14, 2009

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Rhonda Elaine Neff, #029773

LAW OFFICES OF RHONDA NEFF, PLLC

3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2250

Phoenix, AZ 85012 

Telephone: (602) 704-2041

Facsimile: (602) 654-1233

E-mail: rhonda@rhondanefflaw.com 

Attorney for Defendant John Brunst

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

John Brunst,

 Defendant.

Case No. CR 18-0422-04-PHX-DJH

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS 

ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR 

DEFENDANT JOHN BRUNST

Pursuant to LR Civ 83.3(b), undersigned counsel hereby moves this Court to withdraw 

Rhonda Elaine Neff as an attorney of record for Defendant John Brunst in this matter. This 

motion is made on the grounds, as confirmed by the accompanying Declaration of John 

Brunst (Exhibit A), that counsel no longer works for Kimerer Law Group, P.C. and Mr. Brunst 

does not wish to keep counsel retained to represent him in this matter. Mr. Brunst is 

represented in this action by the law firm of Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks, as 

well as Kimerer Law Group, P.C.,so he will not be without representation and this withdrawal 

will not result in any delay or disruption of the proceedings. 

Excludable delay under Title 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) is not anticipated to result 

from this motion.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1473 Filed 10/17/22 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of October, 2022.

LAW OFFICES OF RHONDA NEFF, PLLC

Rhonda Elaine Neff

Attorney for Movant Brunst

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on October 17, 2022, I electronically transmitted the foregoing Motion 

to Withdraw as Counsel to the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System for filing and 

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing will be emailed thru the CM/ECF System to the

registered CM/ECF registrants.

By: /s/ Rhonda Elaine Neff

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1473 Filed 10/17/22 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1473 Filed 10/17/22 Page 3 of 3
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 4 A0 61 6 . YVONNE E. LEE v . PAUL W . LEE.

Yv o nn e E. L ee fi l ed t h is d i rect ap peal fro m th e t ri al co urt ’ s fi n al ju d g m en t an d

d ecree o f d i v orce. Ho wev er, ap p eal s fro m “ j u d gm en t s o r o rd ers i n d iv o rce, al i m o n y ,

an d o th er d o m es t i c r e l a t i on s cas es ” m us t b e m ad e b y ap p l i cat io n fo r d i s cret i o n ary

a p peal

. OCGA § 5-6 -3 5 (a) (2 ). Th e ap p el l an t ’ s fai l u re t o fo l l o w th e d i s cre t i o n a r y

ap p eal p ro ced u re d ep ri v e s u s o f ju ri s d i ct io n o v er t h is ap p eal

, wh i ch i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED. See Fo r d v. Fo r d , 3 4 7 Ga. Ap p . 2 3 3, 2 3 4 (8 1 8 SE2 d 6 90 ) (2 0 1 8 ).

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.
W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. December 04, 2023

12/04/2023
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 31192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15749]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., on June 25, 1996.

PLACE: The Commission's National Office at One Lafayette Centre, 1120 
20th St., N.W., 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20036-3419.

STATUS: Under 29 C.F.R. Sec. 2203.4(d) this meeting is subject to being 
closed by a vote of the Commissioners taken at the beginning of the 
meeting. Since the only matters to be discussed at this meeting will be 
specific cases in the Commission's adjudicative process, it is likely 
that, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. Sec. 2203.3(b)(10), the meeting will be 
closed upon a proper vote taken.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Cases in the Commission's adjudicative 
process.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Earl R. Ohman, Jr., General 
Counsel, (202) 606-5410.
Earl R. Ohman, Jr.,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-15749 Filed 6-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7600-01-M
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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Darryl D Johnson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Unknown Party, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-17-04068-PHX-GMS (ESW)

ORDER 

 On February 8, 2018, Plaintiff Darryl D. Johnson, who is confined in the Arizona 

State Prison Complex-Kingman, filed a pro se civil rights First Amended Complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 (Doc. 9). The Court ordered Defendant McClure to answer 

Count Two of the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 11 at 5). Defendant answered the 

First Amended Complaint, and all issues are joined (Doc. 14). 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Request the Appointment of 

Counsel (Doc. 17). Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint counsel for the Plaintiff 

because (i) Plaintiff is unable to afford to hire his own civil attorney and (ii) Plaintiff is 

not trained in the law, yet has a meritorious claim. 

There is no constitutional right to the appointment of counsel in a civil case. See 

Johnson v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 939 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1991); Ivey v. Bd of 

Regents of the Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir. 1982). In pro se and in forma 

pauperis proceedings, district courts do not have the authority “to make coercive 
- 2 - 

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 

appointments of counsel.” Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 

(1989). District courts, however, do have the discretion to request that an attorney 

represent an indigent civil litigant upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. Of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 

(9th Cir. 2004); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). A determination 

with respect to exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of the likelihood of

success on the merits as well as the ability of Plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in 

light of the complexity of the legal issue involved. Id. “Neither of these factors is 

dispositive and both must be viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting 

Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

 Plaintiff’s filings with the Court indicate that Plaintiff is capable of navigating this 

proceeding and presenting arguments to the Court. Having considered the likelihood of 

success on the merits and Plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims, the Court does not 

find that exceptional circumstances are present that would require the appointment of 

counsel in this case. Plaintiff remains in a position no different than many pro se prisoner 

litigants. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Request the Appointment of Counsel 

(Doc. 17). 

 For the reasons set forth herein, 

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Request the Appointment of 

Counsel (Doc. 17). 

 Dated this 27th day of September, 2018. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge
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 Xenacare Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bobby Story, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| |                        
| |                        
| | /s/ Bobby Story        
| | Bobby Story            
| | Chief Financial Officer
| | Date: November 15, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.1











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in his capacity as an officer of Omega Flex, Inc. (the “Company”), that, to his knowledge:





(a)         the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended  June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)         the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated: June 30, 2011





/s/  Kevin R. Hoben





Kevin R. Hoben


Chief Executive Officer








/s/  Paul J. Kane





Paul J. Kane


Chief Financial Officer








This certification is not deemed to be “filed” for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  This certification is not deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.