alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31(a)****RULE 13a – 14(a)/15d – 14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Sherrill Stone, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Peerless Mfg. Co.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and proceduresto be designed under oursupervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating tothe registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during theperiod in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation;and  (c) Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reportingthat occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the designor operation of internal controlover financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or otheremployees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.     /s/ Sherrill Stone     Sherrill Stone
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

George Alois Meissner, * From the 326th District Court

 of Taylor County,

 Trial Court No. 23-16150N.

Vs. No. 11-24-00194-CV * August 21, 2024

Lorna Brooke Meissner, * Memorandum Opinion by Williams, J. 

 (Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this 

appeal are taxed against George Alois Meissner.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Farm Credit Administration

# AGENCY:

Farm Credit Administration. 

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the regular meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board). 

# Date and Time:

The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on September 11, 2008, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roland E. Smith, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056. 

# ADDRESSES:

Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are: 

### Open Session 

                    A.                     *Approval of Minutes:*

August 14, 2008. 

                    B.                     *New Business:*
    - Bookletter on Director Candidate Disclosures.

                    C.                     *Reports:*
    - Mission-Related Investments-Annual Report.
    - FCS Building Association Quarterly Report.

*Closed Session:**
    - OSMO Supervisory and Oversight Activities.

*Session Closed-Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and (9).

Dated: August 21, 2008. 

Roland E. Smith, 

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. E8-19790 Filed 8-21-08; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-2281

ALFRED T. THOMAS; RANDY L. THOMAS,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS; RAYMOND

GIOVANELLI; MUFFET GARBER; MICHELE E. MORRIS;

MARIA B. PETREA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior

District Judge. (3:06-cv-00238)

Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 26, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfred T. Thomas, Randy L. Thomas, Appellants Pro Se. Mark Weston

Johnson, HELMS, MULLISS & WICKER, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Alfred T. Thomas and Randy L. Thomas appeal the district

court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissing

the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to state a claim.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Thomas v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools, No. 3:06-cv-00238

(W.D.N.C. Nov. 9, 2006). We deny Thomas’ motions to certify and

for sanctions, and dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

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

AFFIRMED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 28, 2014

t0421

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2014

146573

MUSASHI AUTO PARTS OF MICHIGAN, 

INC., d/b/a TECHNICAL AUTO PARTS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146573

COA: 305268 

Ct of Claims: 10-000013-MT

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

By order of May 22, 2013, the application for leave to appeal the December 13, 

2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

NACG Leasing v Dept of Treasury (Docket No. 146234). On order of the Court, the case 

having been decided on February 6, 2014, 495 Mich 26 (2014), the application is again 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6590 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6590

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in 
               gross income of Social Security benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 2022

Mr. Massie (for himself, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Burchett, Mr. Cline, Mr. Gaetz, 
 Mr. Gohmert, Mrs. Greene of Georgia, Mr. Griffith, Mrs. Harshbarger, 
Mr. Lamborn, Mrs. Lesko, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Norman, Mr. Perry, Mr. Posey, 
  Mr. Roy, and Mr. Webster of Florida) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in 
               gross income of Social Security benefits.

    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 ``Senior Citizens Tax Elimination 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INCLUSION IN GROSS INCOME OF SOCIAL SECURITY 
              BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--Section 86 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to social security benefits) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any taxable 
year beginning after the date of the enactment of this subsection.''.
    (b) Social Security Trust Funds Held Harmless.--
            (1) In general.--There are hereby appropriated (out of any 
        money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated) for each 
        fiscal year to each fund under the Social Security Act or the 
        Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 an amount equal to the 
        reduction in the transfers to such fund for such fiscal year by 
        reason of section 86(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
            (2) No tax increases.--It is the sense of the Congress that 
        tax increases will not be used to provide the revenue necessary 
        to carry out paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Atwood Minerals and Mining Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Walter Brenner, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 14th day of March, 2008.

WALTER BRENNERWalter Brenner 
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

















---
JULIAN FRANK KALIVODA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1497

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 4, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

William F. Stone, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant; Julian Frank Kalivoda, pro se, Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
**Exhibit 13.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

Inconnection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of KabelDeutschland GmbH for the annual period ended March 31, 2007, I, Dr. Adrianvon Hammerstein, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge the AnnualReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the AnnualReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
| /s/    DR. ADRIAN VON HAMMERSTEIN |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| **Dr. Adrian von Hammerstein**                        |
| ***Chief Executive Officer***                              |
| Date: July 26, 2007                                   |

 

14

----
#### Thomas Lee GRATE, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, RED ONION STATE PRISON, RespondentAppellee.

No. 02-7270.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 14, 2002.

Thomas Lee Grate, III, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Lee Grate, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on *641his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. To be entitled to a certificate of appealability, Grate must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). When a district court dismisses solely on procedural grounds, the petitioner “must demonstrate both (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right,’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). Upon examination of Grate’s petition, we cannot conclude that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the district court correctly concluded the petition was untimely. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio MURCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-41621.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 19, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Sergio Murcia appeals his sentence following a guilty plea to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Murcia argues that the district court erroneously increased his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4. based on its determination that Murcia gave drug funds to his minor daughter in an effort to avoid detection of the offense. We find no clear error in the district court’s determination. *United States v. Powers,*168 F.3d 741, 752-53 (5th Cir.1999); *United States v. Edwards,*65 F.3d 430, 432 (5th Cir.1995).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT 35.1
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC
              RALI SERIES 2006-QO4 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC,
as servicer  (the  "Servicer")  pursuant to the Series  Supplement,  dated as of
April 1, 2006, and the Standard Terms of Pooling and Servicing Agreement,  dated
as of March 1, 2006 (as  amended  from  time to time,  the  "Agreement"),  among
Residential  Accredit Loans, Inc., as company,  Residential Funding Company, LLC
(formerly  Residential Funding  Corporation),  as master servicer,  and Deutsche
Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee, does hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled  all of its  obligations  under  the  Agreement  in all  material
     respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Managing Director
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 490

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to ensure that constitutionally

protected private property rights are not infringed until adequate protection is afforded by reauthorization of the Act, to protect against and

compensate for economic losses from critical habitat designation, and

for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 11, 1995

Mr. SMITH of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to ensure

that constitutionally protected private property rights are

not infringed until adequate protection is afforded by

reauthorization of the Act, to protect against and compensate for economic losses from critical habitat designation, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Farm, Ranch, and

5 Homestead Protection Act of 1995’’.
2

•HR 490 IH

1 SEC. 2. MORATORIUM ON DETERMINATION OF ENDAN2 GERED SPECIES AND THREATENED SPECIES

3 AND DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT.

4 Section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973

5 (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)) is amended by adding at the end the

6 following:

7 ‘‘(4) MORATORIUM.—Notwithstanding para8 graphs (1) and (3), during the period beginning on

9 the date of enactment of this paragraph and ending

10 on the effective date of the first subsequent reau11 thorization of this Act, the Secretary may not—

12 ‘‘(A) determine that a species is an endan13 gered species or a threatened species under

14 paragraph (1); or

15 ‘‘(B) designate habitat of a species to be

16 critical habitat under paragraph (3).’’.

17 SEC. 3. COMPENSATION OF LANDOWNERS FOR DESIGNA18 TION OF CRITICAL HABITAT.

19 Section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973

20 (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)) (as amended by section 2) is further

21 amended by adding at the end the following:

22 ‘‘(5) COMPENSATION.—If the Secretary des23 ignates habitat of a species to be critical habitat

24 under paragraph (3) and if the habitat is located on

25 property that is owned by a person or entity other

26 than the Federal Government, on request of the per-
3

•HR 490 IH

1 son or entity, the Secretary shall compensate the

2 person or entity for any loss in market value of the

3 land that results from the designation.’’.

4 SEC. 4. AGENCY ACTIONS.

5 Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973

6 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)) is amended by adding at the end the

7 following:

8 ‘‘(5) MORATORIUM.—Notwithstanding para9 graphs (1) through (4), during the period beginning

10 on the date of enactment of this paragraph and end11 ing on the effective date of the first subsequent re12 authorization of this Act, a Federal agency shall not

13 be required to comply with paragraphs (1) through

14 (4).’’.

Æ
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

 Submitted May 23, 2008∗

Decided June 4, 2008

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 07-3768

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RAFAEL GUERECA, also known as RODOLFO

GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 92 CR 326

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge.

Order

Almost a decade after we affirmed his conviction on direct appeal, 79 F.3d 74 

(7th Cir. 1996), Rafael Guereca filed in the criminal case what he styled a motion for 

 

∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After

examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.

App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 07-3768 Page 2

relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The district court denied this motion, 

and Guereca has appealed.

If this is indeed a motion in the criminal case, then the appeal is untimely, 

because the defendant had only 10 days to appeal in a criminal proceeding, see Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(b), and Guereca took more than 40.

Guereca appears to have confused criminal with civil proceedings. Civil Rule 

60(b) applies only to civil cases; it has no operation in criminal prosecutions. If Guereca 

had filed a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. §2255, a proceeding classified as civil, then 

he might have been able to use Civil Rule 60(b) to reopen the judgment. (We say 

“might” because many motions nominally under Rule 60(b) are properly classified as 

successive collateral attacks, which district judges may not entertain without prior 

approval by this court. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005).) But Guereca has not 

commenced a proceeding under §2255, so this motion must have been in the criminal 

case.

The “Rule 60(b) motion” probably should have been treated as a motion under 

§2255, see Melton v. United States, 359 F.3d 855 (7th Cir. 2004), but the district judge did 

not give Guereca the warning required by Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2004). 

Because the motion thus remained one in the criminal case, the appeal must be 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appeal would be dismissed even if we were to 

apply the 90-day civil period, because if this proceeding were deemed a collateral attack 

Guereca would need a certificate of appealability, see West v. Schneiter, 485 F.3d 393 (7th 

Cir. 2007), and he does not meet the statutory standards for one. Guereca should 

understand, moreover, that the time limit for a proper §2255 motion has long since 

expired, and that there is no point in filing such a motion in the district court unless the 

criteria of §2255(f) are satisfied.

APPEAL DISMISSED.