alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer   I, Jeffery Thompson, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Solutions Mechanical, 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. 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  6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not 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: July 9, 2007  /s/ Jeffery Thompson Jeffery Thompson Title: President and Chief Financial Officer  2
cbmg_ex1033.htm


Exhibit 10.33


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 




  





5











  






 


 




  





6











  






 


 




  





7











  






 


 




  





8











  






 


 




  





9











  






 


 




  





10











  






 


 




  





11











  






 


 




  





12











  






 


 




  





13











  






 


 


14
2:09-cv-11928-PDB-CEB Doc # 27 Filed 07/26/12 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1660
2:09-cv-11928-PDB-CEB Doc # 27 Filed 07/26/12 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1661
2:09-cv-11928-PDB-CEB Doc # 27 Filed 07/26/12 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1662
#### BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC., et al., Relators, v. The Honorable Jeff WALKER, Judge, 96th District Court, Tarrant County, Respondent.

No. C-9099.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 2, 1990.

David Broiles, George Galerstein, William F. Peters, Jr., Sterling W. Steves, Fort Worth, for relators.

Michael B. Sydow, Houston, Jose Batista Dos Santos, Fort Worth, Kelli M. McDonald, Houston, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Relators are defendants in a wrongful death action brought by the real parties in interest as beneficiaries of persons killed in a helicopter crash about twenty miles off the coast of Brazil. Decedents, who were not citizens or residents of the United States, were being transported to work on offshore oil platforms in waters over the continental shelf of Brazil. Relators contend that undisputed facts establish that the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688(b) (1982), *955precludes plaintiffs from asserting their claims in any United States court. Thus, relators contend, the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims. Similar contentions are before the Court in *Jackson v. S.P. Leasing Corp.,*No. C-8819 (argued Dec. 6, 1989), *writ of error granted from*774 S.W.2d 673 (Tex.App.— Texarkana 1989). We need not reach these issues in the present case, however, and express no opinion on their ultimate merit. We conclude, instead, that relators are not entitled to mandamus relief because they have an adequate remedy by appeal.

We have consistently held that we lack jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to supervise or correct incidental rulings of a trial judge when there is an adequate remedy by appeal. “Such incidental rulings include ... pleas to the jurisdiction, ... [even if] it might logically be argued that the petitioner for the writ was entitled, as a matter of law, to the action sought to be compelled.” *Abor v. Black,*695 S.W.2d 564, 566-567 (Tex.1985), quoting *Pope v. Ferguson,*445 S.W.2d 950, 954 (Tex.1969), *cert. denied,*397 U.S. 997, 90 S.Ct. 1138, 25 L.Ed.2d 405 (1970). General ly, the cost and delay of pursuing an appeal will not, in themselves, render appeal an inadequate alternative to mandamus review. *See Iley v. Hughes,*158 Tex. 362, 311 S.W.2d 648, 652 (1958); *but cf. Proffer v. Yates,*734 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1987) (man damus appropriate to direct transfer of child support case because justice demands speedy resolution of such cases). Relators’ application does not fall within any recognized exception to these general rules. Therefore, leave to file relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<CIK>          0000914670
<NAME>         Correctional Services Corporation


<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                       Jan-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        Dec-31-1997
<CASH>                                5,216,106
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                        10,672,018
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     18,293,326
<PP&E>                               25,588,416
<DEPRECIATION>                        1,871,244
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       55,866,287
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                11,601,622
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                 76,938
<OTHER-SE>                           43,111,236
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         55,866,287
<SALES>                              58,593,217
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     59,936,101
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     55,331,801
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    (444,077)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       5,048,377
<INCOME-TAX>                          2,022,853
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   3,025,524
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                          3,025,524
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             $0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                             $0.37



</TABLE>
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

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30463

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL MARTIN, JR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:07-CR-157-2

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Martin, Jr., appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for

possession with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine base in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841. For the reason that he waived appeal, the judgment is affirmed.

However, Martin argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him

that he would receive a career offender enhancement that would triple his

sentence. He argues that his appeal is not barred by his appeal waiver because

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 6, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-30463

2

he is claiming that the ineffective assistance of counsel affected the validity of

his guilty plea. He also argues that the district court record is sufficiently

developed for us to address his ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal. He

alternatively asks us to remand the case to the district court for an evidentiary

hearing so that the issue can then be resolved on direct appeal.

Martin waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence except for

a sentence that exceeded the maximum sentence allowed by statute. Ineffective

assistance of counsel claims challenging the guilty plea and waiver provision

themselves survive the waiver. See United States v. White, 307 F.3d 336, 343

(5th Cir. 2002). A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, however, generally

cannot be addressed on direct appeal unless the claim has been presented to the

district court. See United States v. Brewster, 137 F.3d 853, 859 (5th Cir.1998);

United States v. Navejar, 963 F.2d 732, 735 (5th Cir. 1992); see also Massaro v.

United States, 538 U.S. 500, 505 (2003).

We conclude that the factual issues underlying Martin’s claim of

ineffective assistance cannot be determined on the current record. The Supreme

Court has noted that such factual issues are best resolved by the district court

on 28 U.S.C. § 2255 review. See Massaro, 538 U.S. at 502-06. Consequently, we

decline to address Martin’s ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal. Our

decision not to address the issue is without prejudice to Martin raising his

ineffective assistance claim again in a timely § 2255 proceeding.

AFFIRMED.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 50758 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

RUTILIO HERNANDEZ, also known as Rudy

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:02

- CR

- 692

- 3

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rutilio Hernandez

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hernandez has filed a re sponse. We have reviewed

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein , as well

as Hernandez ’ s response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED
March 21, 201 8
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-50758 Document: 00514395802 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2018No. 17

- 50758

2 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-50758 Document: 00514395802 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2018
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 34505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16785]


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


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Agency Information Collection: Submission for OMB Review; Comment 
Request

AGENCY: Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of 
Veterans Affairs, has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) the following proposal for the collection of information under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    OMB Control Number: None Assigned.
    Title and Form Number: Survey of Health Promotion and Preventative 
Medicine, VA Form 10-21000(NR)
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Need and Uses: Congressional mandate that the VA assess the rates 
that veterans are offered and receive critical health promotion and 
disease prevention services, and report these rates to Congress on an 
annual basis, Public Law 102-585. Existing data resources in the VA are 
unable to provide complete documentation regarding receipt of those 
services. An annual mail survey will be used to obtain the necessary 
information.
    Affected Public: Individuals and households.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 5,777 hours.
    Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent: 10 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 51,900.

ADDRESSES: A copy of this submission may be obtained from Ron Taylor, 
VA Clearance Officer (045A4), Department of Veterans Affairs, 8l0 
Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8015.
    Comments and recommendations concerning the submission should be 
directed to VA's OMB Desk Officer, Allison Eydt, OMB Human Resources 
and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 
Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395-4650. DO NOT send requests for benefits 
to this address.

DATES: Comments on the information collection should be directed to the 
OMB Desk Officer by no later than August 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Taylor, VA Clearance Officer 
(045A4), (202) 273-8015.


    Dated: June 24, 1996.

    By direction of the Secretary:
William T. Morgan,
Management Analyst.
[FR Doc. 96-16785 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 45433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17873]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER07-1193-002]

CPV Liberty, LLC; Notice of Filing

July 29, 2008.
    Take notice that on June 30, 2008, CPV Liberty, LLC filed revised 
market-based rate tariff sheets reflecting the new tariff requirements 
established in Order Nos. 697 and 697-A.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 8, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17873 Filed 8-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6799
TROY R. SUTTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusRICHARD WYMER, courtroom bailiff of the Norfolk General District courtroom #6, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-205-2) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy R. Sutton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sutton v. Wymer , No. CA-96-205-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 23, 1996). We deny the motion for oral argument and dispense with argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 4.44

 

Column A

 

Column B

Column C

 

Re: Tax Payables

 

Dear Column D:

 

In connection with that certain Loan Agreement, Equity Pledge Agreement and Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement entered into among Column B, Shanghai Rampage Shopping Co., Ltd. (“Rampage Shopping”) and Rampage Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. on the date hereof (the “Agreements”), Rampage Shopping will reimburse Column B for any and all taxes payable by Column B arising from the transactions contemplated under the Agreements.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Shanghai Rampage Shopping Co., Ltd.

 

[seal: Shanghai Rampage Shopping Co., Ltd.]

 

 

	
AGREED TO AND   ACCEPTED BY:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Column B
    	
 
    
	
(Signature of Column B)
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
Column B
    	
 
    
			


 

1











 

	
 
    	
 
    	
Column A
    	
 
    	
Column B
    	
 
    	
Column C
    	
 
    	
Column D
    
	
1
    	
 
    	
Feb 10, 2012
    	
 
    	
Sang Xiaobing
    	
 
    	
Room 203,   Building 2, No. 11, Tongqu Lane, Wucheng Disctrict, Jinhua, Zhejiang   Province, China
    	
 
    	
Mr. Sang
    
	
2
    	
 
    	
Nov 8, 2013
    	
 
    	
Huang Wei ling
    	
 
    	
Room 303,   No. 12, Wannansi Village, Xuhui District, Shanghai, China
    	
 
    	
Ms. Huang
    
	
3
    	
 
    	
Sep 17, 2010
    	
 
    	
Liu Guisheng
    	
 
    	
Room 601,   No. 6, Lane 157 Zhenhua Road Shanghai, China
    	
 
    	
Mr. Liu
    


 

2
1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Inter-Atlantic Financial,
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 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:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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):
    /s/ D. James Daras

Name: D. James DarasTitle: Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Quicksilver Gas Services LP;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 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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):
    /s/ Philip CookPhilip CookSenior Vice President  Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

VALENTINE GRDEN,

Plaintiff, CASE NUMBER: 09-10579

HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.

LEIKIN, INGBER & WINTERS, P.C.,

Defendant.

 / 

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered on January 19, 2010, judgment is entered

in favor of the defendant.

David Weaver

Clerk of the Court

By: S/Carol A. Pinegar

Deputy Clerk

Dated: January 19, 2010 

Case 2:09-cv-10579-VAR-DAS Document 23 Filed 01/19/2010 Page 1 of 1