alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# **Exhibit 31.3**

 

I, R. Herbert Hampton, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-K/Aof Golden Cycle Gold Corporation:

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; and

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

 

 

Date: April 5, 2005

 
|   |   /s/ R. Herbert  Hampton  |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |   R. Herbert  Hampton      |
|   |   Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge 1 for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge 2 for the Eastern District of Missouri. No. 96-2755

Shawsy Jones, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Missouri. * General American Life * [UNPUBLISHED] Insurance Company, * * Appellant. *

Submitted: January 17, 1997 Filed: February 13, 1997

Before MURPHY, Circuit Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and KYLE, District Judge.

1

PER CURIAM.
Shaw sy Jones (“Jones”) appeals from the district court’s 2 order upholding General American Life Insurance Company’s (“ General American”) decision to deny her claim for total disability b enefits under an employee benefit plan it administered.

Jones raises two arguments on appeal. She alleges that th e district court erred in affirming General American’s decisio n as it was not supported by substantial evidence. She also argues, for the-2-

first time, that the district court applied an incorrect standard of review. While the district court applied a deferential standard-3-

of review to General American’s determination because the benefit plan granted administrator dis cretion, see Donaho v. FMC Corp. , 74 F.3d 894, 898 (8th Cir. 1996), Jones contends the court shou ld have utilized a higher standard of review due to an alleged conflict of intere st between General American’s “profit motive” and Jones ’ “entit lement to benefits.” See Buttram v. Central States S.E. & S.W. Health & Welfare Fund , 76 F.3d 896, 900, n.6 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that when conflict of interest exists, “the resultin g decision may be accorded stricter scrutiny”).

An appellant must adhere to the theory upon which the case w as tried be low, and we will “refuse to consider a question which i s raised for the first time on appeal and which was never presented to, or passed upon by the trial court.” Ludwig v. Marion Lab s. , 465 F.2d 1 14, 116 (8th Cir. 1972); see also Kirk v. St. Joseph Stoc k Yards Co. , 206 F.2d 283, 287 (8th Cir. 1953). Jones’ argumen t regarding the proper standard of review was not raised in th e district court, and thus we will not consider it here.

We have reviewed de novo the district court’s application of the deferential standard of review of General American’ s determination. See Bolling v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 990 F.2d 1028, 1029 (8th Cir. 1993)



### . We find that the district court, in a thorough an d well-reasoned opinion, properly concluded that General American’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.
ATTEST: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT
#### Louise McCORMICK v. CITY OF HUNTSVILLE.

8 Div. 125.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 21, 1935.

BICE, Judge.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32

                    CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Annual Report of Isramco, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report") filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Haim Tsuff, Chief Executive and Principal
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 Company's 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.


MARCH 15, 2007                          /s/ HAIM TSUFF
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        HAIM TSUFF
                                        CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                        (AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING
                                        OFFICER)

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO
ISRAMCO, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY ISRAMCO, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
Exhibit 4


REINCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 18, 2003

COMMON STOCK
NUMBER TVB
COMMON STOCK
SHARES

TEMECULA VALLEY BANCORP INC.
Temecula, California

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
CUSIP 87972L 10 4

This Certifies that

If the record owner of

FULLY PAID SHARES, BEING THE SHARES REPRESENTED HEREBY, OF
TEMECULA VALLEY BANCORP INC.

hereinafter designated "the Corporation," transferable on the share register of
the Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this
Certificate properly endorsed or assigned. The amount of capital stock of the
Corporation is set forth on the books of the Corporation and the par value of
the shares of capital stock of the Corporation is as set forth in the
Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation which Certificate of
Incorporation and any and all amendments thereto are on file at the office of
the Corporation and are hereby expressly incorporated herein by reference and to
all of which the holder by acceptance hereof, hereby agrees and assents. THIS
CERTIFICATE IS NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED BY THE TRANSFER
AGENT AND REGISTRAR.

IN WITNESSETH WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused the Certificate to be
signed by the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.

Dated:

Donald A. Pitcher
SECRETARY

Stephen H. Wacknitz
PRESIDENT

TEMECULA VALLEY BANCORP INC.
CORPORATE SEAL
MARCH 4
2002
DELEWARE

CERTIFICATE OF STOCK
COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED:
U.S. STOCK TRANSFER CORPORATION
TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
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 Annual Report of Salomon Smith Barney Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, 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 Partnership.

/s/ Jerry Pascucci
Jerry Pascucci
Citigroup Managed Futures LLC
President and Director

March 28, 2008
Date

---
#### John Astor, Plaintiff, *v.*Gertrude G. Astor et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

January 28, 1957.

*Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin & Krim*for Dolores F. Astor appearing specially.

*Satterlee, Browne & Cherbonnier*for Gertrude G. Astor, defendant.

Aron Steuer, J.

The plaintiff brings this action against two women, each of whom not only claims to be his wife but each of whom has a judgment to support her claim. He asks for a declaratory judgment declaring the marital status of the parties. The moving defendant is a resident of Florida. She appeared in the action by her attorney. It is not disputed that the appearance was a general one. Thereafter the other defendant served an answer containing a counterclaim against her. This counterclaim seeks a declaratory judgment to the effect that that defendant is the lawful wife. The answer was served on the moving defendant’s attorneys. The motion is to dismiss the counterclaim on the ground that without personal service the court has no jurisdiction of the counterclaim.

It is a bit difficult to see why the counterclaim is necessary and also what objection there may be to it. Determination of the plaintiff’s action will dispose of any issue raised by the counterclaim. The counterclaiming defendant under the pleadings has a right to a complete presentation of her marital position. The counterclaim gives her no greater rights either to present evidence or obtain relief than she has without it. Nevertheless, the question must be decided. A nonresident who voluntarily appears in an action subjects himself to jurisdiction in the plaintiff’s suit against him for all purposes. The question is does he also subject himself to jurisdiction for the determination of any claim that a party other than the plaintiff may assert against him. In seeking the answer to this problem, it is futile to consider the provisions of the Civil Practice Act which direct how different parties to an action are to proceed against each *515other and how the court is to make determinations between them. Such provisions control where there is jurisdiction but they can not confer it against a nonresident. Authority must be found, if it exists, elsewhere.

And not only is authority lacking for the proposition, there is controlling authority against it *(Ex Parte Indiana Transportation Co.,*244 U. S. 456; Restatement, Judgments, § 5). The opposition’s reliance on *Adam*v. *Saenger*(303 U. S. 59) is misplaced. The decision there held that institution of a counterclaim against the plaintiff by means of notice on his attorney is proper even if the plaintiff is a nonresident. As pointed out (p. 67) there is nothing arbitrary in a State statute making a plaintiff who seeks the jurisdiction present for all purposes.

The motion is granted.
EXHIBIT 21.1

GASTAR EXPLORATION LTD.

Subsidiary List  December 31, 2007



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|100% Subsidiaries owned of Gastar Exploration Ltd. (Alberta, Canada)
|Gastar Exploration USA, Inc. (Michigan)                             
|                                                                    
|100% Subsidiaries owned of Gastar Exploration USA, Inc. (Michigan)  
|Gastar Exploration New South Wales, Inc. (Michigan)                 
|Gastar Exploration Victoria, Inc. (Michigan)                        
|Gastar Exploration Texas LP (Delaware) (1)(2)                       
|Gastar Power Pty Ltd. (Australia)                                   



|(1) | Gastar Exploration Texas LLC (Delaware), General Partner (1%)
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | Gastar Exploration Texas, Inc. (Michigan), Limited Partner (99%)
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------
DEMARIO PARAMORE,

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. 1D13-4531

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 19, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James C. Hankinson, Judge.

Robert A. Morris and Elliott Smith of Law Offices of Robert Morris, Tallahassee, 

for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR.
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 Annual Report of Cosmo Communications Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter
Horak, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





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





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





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Cosmo Communications Corporation. and will be retained by Cosmo Communications
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.


/S/
      Peter HorakPeter
      Horak
                  Chief
      Executive Officer
                  (Principal
      Executive Officer)
                  
                  Date:
      June 11, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 198 (Friday, October 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 60310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24097]



[[Page 60310]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1791-DR]


Texas; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Texas (FEMA-1791-DR), dated September 13, 2008, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 2, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following area 
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of September 13, 2008.

    Chambers County for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already 
designated for Individual Assistance and debris removal and 
emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct 
Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036; 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-24097 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
Exhibit 99.1


                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Timothy Kelley Millet, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
          Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in
          respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual
          report, of Trust Certificates (TRUCs), Series 2002-1 Trust;

     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 as of the last day of the period covered by this
          annual report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
          required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the
          trust agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in these
          reports; and

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          depositor and the trustee under the trust agreement and based upon
          my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that
          agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and
          the trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that
          agreement.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as trustee, and its officers and agents.

                    By:     /s/ Timothy Kelley Millet
                    ---------------------------------------------
                    Name:   Timothy Kelley Millet
                    Title:  Chief Executive Officer/President,
                            Bear Stearns Depositor Inc.
                    Date:   March 28, 2005
Case 1:11-cv-02556-BNB Document 2 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02556-BNB Document 2 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02556-BNB Document 2 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02556-BNB Document 2 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 58536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23740]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1576]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; Baker Hughes, Inc. (Barite 
Milling), Corpus Christi, TX

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for ``* * * the 
establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant 
qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of 
entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results 
in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest;
    Whereas, the Port of Port of Corpus Christi Authority, grantee of 
Foreign-Trade Zone 122, has made application to the Board for authority 
to establish a special-purpose subzone at the barite milling facility 
of Baker Hughes, Inc., located in Corpus Christi, Texas (FTZ Docket 15-
2008, filed 2/25/08);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (73 FR 12949, 3/11/08); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds the requirements of the FTZ Act and the 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application 
is in the public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status for activity related to barite milling at the facility of Baker 
Hughes, Inc., located in Corpus Christi, Texas (Subzone 122Q), as 
described in the application and Federal Register notice, and subject 
to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of September, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23740 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
815 A.2d 954

#### IN THE MATTER OF WOLF A. SAMAY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

February 13, 2003.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 02-247, concluding that as a matter of reciprocal discipline pursuant to *Rule*l:20-14(b), WOLF A. SAMAY of *439PASSAIC, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1980, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years, respondent having been removed from judicial office by Order of the Court on January 12, 2001, for conduct that violated *RPC*3.3(a)(l)(candor toward a tribunal), *RPC*8.4(c)(conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and *RPC*8.4(d)(eonduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that WOLF A. SAMAY is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years and until the further Order of the Court, effective March 12, 2003; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that respondent comply with *Rule*1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
#### CAESAR v. BURNUP & SIMS OF DELRAY, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Certiorari denied without opinion.