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








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Brian L. Klemsz, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer, certify
that:





1.   I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q;





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;





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 issuer as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;





4.   I
am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-a5(e)) for the
issuer and have;





(a)  Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure the material
information relating to the issuer, 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)  Evaluated
the effectiveness of the issuer'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





(c)  Disclosed
in this report any change in the issuer's internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the
issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer's
internal control over financial reporting; and





5. I have
disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the issuer's
board of directors (or person 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 issuer'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 issuer's internal controls over financial
reporting.





Date:  AUGUST
18, 2008
 /s/ Brian L.
Klemsz
 Chief
Executive Officer
 Chief
Financial Officer
Case 2:09-cv-13556-JAC-VMM Document 1 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:09-cv-13556-JAC-VMM Document 1 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:09-cv-13556-JAC-VMM Document 1 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:09-cv-13556-JAC-VMM Document 1 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:09-cv-13556-JAC-VMM Document 1 Filed 09/09/2009 Page 5 of 5
#### VERRO v. UNITED STATES. CAHILL v. SAME.

Nos. 6386, 6385.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Feb. 24, 1938.

Samuel Kagle and Thomas D. McBride, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.

James P. McCormick, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Philadelphia, Pa., and J. Cullen Ganey, U. S. Atty., of • Bethlehem, Pa., for the United States.

Before DAVIS and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and DICKINSON, District Judge.

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.

These are appeals from judgments of the District Court for -the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Judgments of conviction were entered upon a verdict finding both appellants guilty of mail robbery, of placing the custodian of the mail in jeopardy by using a deadly weapon, and of conspiracy. The robbery occurred about 7:30 in the morning of June 1, 1934. Government witnesses identified both appellants as having been at the scene of the robbery. The appellants claimed to have been elsewhere at the time, and were corroborated, by witnesses whose testimony, if believed, would substantiate the alibi defense. In order to test the credibility of those witnesses, the prosecuting attorney cross-examined them concerning prior arrests for matters unrelated to the present case. This was clearly error. In Melaragno v. United States, 3 Cir., 88 F.2d 264, we applied the Pennsylvania common-law rules of evidence and held that it was error to admit evidence of a prior conviction of a crime which was not a felony or a misdemeanor in the nature of a crimen falsi or involving moral turpitude. Government counsel concede that if it is error to admit evidence of prior convictions, it is certainly error to admit evidence of prior arrests which do not have the weight of a judicial determination of the guilt of the party arrested.

In the Verro appeal, No. 6386, the government contends that this error was harmless, because McCall, the appellant’s witness, had voluntarily testified that he was a bootlegger. The permitted cross-examination went so far afield, however, that *505we must conclude that the appellant was prejudiced, for it is quite conceivable that the evidence thus elicited affected the jury’s verdict. Nicola v. United States, 3 Cir., 72 F.2d 780; Little v. United States, 10 Cir., 73 F.2d 861, 96 A.L.R. 889. The situation in the Cahill appeal, No. 6385, is complicated by the absence of exceptions to the objectionable line of examination. In view of the fact that the appellants were indicted, tried, and convicted jointly, it is clear that testimony which prejudiced one appellant may also have prejudiced the other. Although we are reluctant to take notice of errors to which no exception has been taken, we may exercise that power when the record convinces us that prejudicial error has been committed. United States v. Vigorito, 2 Cir., 67 F.2d 329.

The judgments are reversed, and new trials ordered.
Summary Translation	Exhibit 4.63


 


 Maximum Pledge
Contract


 


Contract No.:2013JIYINBAOZIDI13121742


 


Pledgor :LI YONG HUI


 


Pledgee : CITIC Shijiazhuang Branch


 


Signing Date : September 2, 2013


 


Pledge Definition :   To ensure multiple loans Party
B (Pledgee) has lent to Hebei Ganglian Finance Leasing Co., Ltd.., Party A (Pledgor) is willing to provide the Maximum Pledge Guarantee
hereunder for Party B.


  


Maximum Amount: RMB70, 000,000


 


Pledge Term : September 2, 2013 to September 2, 2014
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MINHAS ENERGY CONSULTANTS,  INC. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,
Ravinder Minhas, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                        /s/ Ravinder Minhas
                                        ---------------------------------
Date: August 9, 2007                    Ravinder Minhas
                                        Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 12.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**RULE 13a—14(a)**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, John R. Allison, certifythat:

 

# 1.             I have reviewed thisannual report on Form 20-F of Kerzner International Limited;

#  

# 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 company as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

#  

# 4.             The company’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

 

## (a)           Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, 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)           Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the company’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)           Disclosedin this report any change in the company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting; and

#  

# 5.             The company’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

----

 

## (a)           Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the company’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 company’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 

Date: March 31, 2006

 

 
|   |   | /s/ John R.  Allison     |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   | John R.  Allison         |
|   |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 34-2 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 538
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 34-2 Filed 07/30/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 539
[Cite as State ex rel. Gonzalez v. Astrab, 2012-Ohio-3582.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 97922 

STATE EX REL. EDGAR GONZALEZ 

RELATOR 

vs. 

JUDGE MICHAEL ASTRAB, ET AL. 

RESPONDENTS 

JUDGMENT: 

COMPLAINT DISMISSED 

Writ of Mandamus and Procedendo 

Motion No. 452465 

Order No. 456884 

RELEASE DATE: August 9, 2012 
RELATOR 

Edgar Gonzalez 

No. 593-445 

Lorain Correctional Institution 

2075 South Avon Belden Road 

Grafton, Ohio 44044 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS

William D. Mason, Esq. 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: James E. Moss, Esq. 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

8th Floor, Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.: 

{¶1} Relator, Edgar Gonzalez, is the defendant in State v. Gonzalez, Cuyahoga 

C.P. No. CR-504595, which has been assigned to respondent judge, a member of 

respondent court. Gonzalez complains that the court of common pleas imposed sentence 

without properly addressing the issue of allied offenses of similar import under R.C. 

2941.25. Gonzalez argues that his sentence is void and requests this court to issue a writ 

of mandamus and/or procedendo to compel respondents to have him returned to 

Cuyahoga County “to be sentenced to a lawful sentence * * *.” Complaint, ¶ 11. 

{¶2} Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss and argue that relief in 

mandamus and/or procedendo is not appropriate. We agree. 

{¶3} In State ex rel. Agosto v. Gallagher, 8th Dist. No. 97760, 2011-Ohio-4514, 

aff’d, 131 Ohio St.3d 176, 2012-Ohio-563, 962 N.E.2d 796, the relator complained that 

his sentence was void because the court of common pleas improperly sentenced him to 

allied offenses. Agosto requested relief in mandamus and/or procedendo to compel the 

respondents — the court of common pleas and a judge of that court — to bring him back 

to that court to receive a “lawful sentence.” Id. at ¶ 2. We denied Agosto’s claim for 

relief and the Supreme Court affirmed observing: 

Moreover, Agosto’s allied-offense claims are nonjurisdictional and 

are not cognizable in an extraordinary-writ action. See Smith v. Voorhies, 

119 Ohio St.3d 345, 2008-Ohio-4479, 894 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 10 (habeas corpus). 
 Agosto had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to raise his 

claims in an appeal from his sentencing entry. 

Id. at ¶ 3. 

{¶4} The Supreme Court has stated clearly that original actions do not provide a 

remedy for allied-offense claims. As a consequence, we must hold that Gonzalez’s 

complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

{¶5} Accordingly, respondents’ motion to dismiss is granted. Relator to pay 

costs. The court directs the clerk of court to serve all parties notice of this judgment and 

its date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B). 

{¶6} Complaint dismissed. 

 

 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE 

MARY J. BOYLE, P.J., and 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT SAMONEK,

Defendant.

 /

Criminal No. 09-cr-20225

Civil No. 12-cv-14703

ORDER CLOSING CASE IN LIEU OF JUDGMENT 

On June 30, 2014, the court entered an order denying Defendant Scott

Samonek’s “Motion to Set Aside or Correct Sentence.” Inasmuch as the issues in

controversy have been resolved, the instant matter is deemed closed. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court close the above-captioned case.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 30, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, June 30, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-20225.SAMONEK.OrderCloseCaseLieuJ.jac.wpd

2:09-cr-20225-RHC-PJK Doc # 57 Filed 06/30/14 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 454
#### Michael JONES, Petitioner, v. The CITY OF McKINNEY, Texas, Respondent.

No. 95-0555.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Nov. 2, 1995.

Rehearing Overruled Dec. 22, 1995.

*934Lance S. Baxter, Plano, for Petitioner.

Grady R. Thompson, McKinney, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Michael Jones sued his employer, the City of McKinney, for allegedly firing him in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim. The jury returned findings favorable to Jones, but the trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment for the City based on sovereign immunity. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the Legislature, under the 1989 amendments to the Political Subdivisions Act, *see*Tex.Lab.Code § 504.002, did not waive sovereign immunity for retaliatory discharge claims [1995 WL 26803]. We have today reached the opposite conclusion in *Kuhl v. City of Garland,*910 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.1995). Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, a majority of the Court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands this cause to that court for consideration of the parties’ remaining points of error.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4242 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4242

  To amend the Act commonly known as the ``Antiquities Act'' to limit 
further extension or establishment of national monuments in California.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 1996

Mr. Doolittle (for himself, Mr. Herger, Mrs. Seastrand, Mr. Pombo, Mr. 
 Calvert, Mr. Packard, Mr. Dornan, Mr. Cunningham, Mrs. Chenoweth, and 
Mr. Cooley of Oregon) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                     to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Act commonly known as the ``Antiquities Act'' to limit 
further extension or establishment of national monuments in California.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON FURTHER EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL 
              MONUMENTS IN CALIFORNIA.

    The Act entitled ``An Act for the preservation of American 
antiquities'', approved June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.; commonly 
known as the ``Antiquities Act''), is amended by adding at the end the 
following new section:
    ``Sec. 5. After the effective date of this section, no extension or 
establishment of any national monument in California may be undertaken 
except by express authorization of Congress.''.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Joseph John Flores II V. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-10-00531-CR, 01-10-00532-CR, 01-10-00533-CR. 01-10-00534-

CR

Trial court case number: 1114129

Trial court: 228th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: March 22, 2013

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes

Date: May 1, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 6213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1823]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-62,703]


Syngenta Inc. Crop Protection Division, Bucks, AL; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on January 18, 2008 in response to a 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Syngenta 
Inc., Crop Protection Division, Bucks, Alabama.
    The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active 
certification (TA-W-59,181), which expires on April 21, 2008. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 25th day of January 2008.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-1823 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4279 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                    

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4279

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to determine the feasibility 
  of placing bar codes on passenger motor vehicles to facilitate the 
          tracing of stolen vehicles, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 1996

 Mr. Ackerman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of Transportation to determine the feasibility 
  of placing bar codes on passenger motor vehicles to facilitate the 
          tracing of stolen vehicles, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Auto Theft Deterrent Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. USE OF BAR CODES TO TRACE STOLEN VEHICLES.

    (a) Feasibility Study.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
        conduct a study to determine the feasibility and advisability 
        of prescribing standards for the placement of bar codes on 
        passenger motor vehicles and the placement of devices for 
        reading such bar codes at toll gates on roads, bridges, and 
        tunnels for the purpose of facilitating the tracing of stolen 
        vehicles, including stolen vehicles that are abandoned.
            (2) Deadline.--The Secretary shall complete the study not 
        later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this 
        Act.
    (b) Standards.--Based on the results of the study conducted under 
subsection (a), and not before the date that is 18 months after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary is authorized to 
prescribe by regulation standards for the placement of bar codes on 
passenger motor vehicle equipment manufactured in, or imported into, 
the United States. Such standards shall not apply to a passenger motor 
vehicle or passenger motor vehicle equipment--
            (1) intended only for export;
            (2) labeled for export on the vehicle or equipment and the 
        outside of any container of the vehicle or equipment; and
            (3) exported.
                                 <all>
```
**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 this Amendment Number 1 to the Annual Report of Largo Vista
Group, Ltd (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Albert Figueroa, Secretary/Treasurer of the Company, certifies to
the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.
 
 Date: May
11, 2005
 
 /s/
Albert Figueroa
 ---------------------------------------------
 Albert
Figueroa, Principal Accounting Officer
 
 This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.