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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. SECTION 7241, AS ADOPTED 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE 

SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002 

I, J. Russell Porter, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gastar Exploration, Ltd. (the “Registrant”); 

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, notmisleading 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 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 definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and we have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theRegistrant’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; and

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

5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof 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): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’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 Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 26, 2007
**EXHIBIT32.1**

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 Ciprico Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2006 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, James W. Hansen,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

 
| Dated: December 7, 2006 | /s/ James W. Hansen                       |   |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    | James W. Hansen   Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) by Beverly Hills Bancorp Inc. (the Company), the undersigned officer of the Company hereby certifies 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, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |                           
|----------------- |  | --------------------------
|                  |  | BEVERLY HILLS BANCORP INC.
|                  | 
|Date: May 9, 2007 |  | /s/     TAKEO K.
SASAKI   
|                  |  | Takeo K. Sasaki           
|                  |  | Chief Financial Officer   

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form
10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                          5
<LEGEND>       
               This schedule  contains Summary Financial  Information  extracted
               from the Balance Sheet and Income  Statement for the three months
               ended September 30, 1998 for Mobius Management Systems,  Inc. and
               is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Financial
               Statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                            0001025148       
<NAME>                                           MOBIUS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                       USD
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                   JUL-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.0
<CASH>                                          45,573
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,892
<ALLOWANCES>                                       788
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,320
<PP&E>                                           5,883
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,803
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,820
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,620
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,732
<SALES>                                         15,756
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,756
<CGS>                                            1,615
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,961
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,548
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,879
<INCOME-TAX>                                       988
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                891
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       891
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        


</TABLE>
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, sitting by

designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JUAN HERNANDEZ-ORTIZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-50568

D.C. No. 3:09-cr-02644-LAB-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 6, 2011

Pasadena, California

Before: NOONAN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,** Senior District

Judge.

 

FILED

MAY 18 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Juan Hernandez-Ortiz, native and citizen of Mexico, appeals his conviction

and the sentence imposed for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez-Ortiz’s

motion to substitute appointed counsel. Hernandez-Ortiz provided no explanation

for his lack of trust in his attorney, nor could he point to any “striking signs of

serious conflict.” United States v. Mendez-Sanchez, 563 F.3d 935, 944 (9th Cir.

2009) (quoting United States v. Adelzo-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d 772, 778 (9th Cir.

2001)). The record contains no indication that antagonism or hostility on his

attorney’s part limited the effectiveness of her representation, and she fully

supported Hernandez-Ortiz at the hearing on the motion to substitute. See

Adelzo-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d at 779. Moreover, as the district court properly

recognized, a defendant’s “general unreasonableness” does not suffice to show an

“irreconcilable conflict.” Mendez-Sanchez, 563 F.3d at 943, 945 (citations

omitted). The district court did not conclude that Hernandez-Ortiz’s motion was

untimely, and the court’s inquiry was adequate because its “specific and targeted

questions” established that Hernandez-Ortiz’s attorney was competent and capable

of effectively representing him. Adelzo-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d at 778.
3

 The district court’s application of an 8-level increase under U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) was proper because Hernandez-Ortiz’s § 496(a) conviction for

receipt of stolen property categorically qualifies as an aggravated felony. See

Verdugo-Gonzalez v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The full range

of conduct proscribed by California Penal Code section § 496(a) falls within the

generic definition of a theft offense” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G).).

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02550-WYD-MJW 

SIAMAK AMIRINOOR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

ORDER TO TRANSFER 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon review of the file. Pursuant to 

D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1A and with approval of the Chief Judge, this matter is hereby 

transferred to Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch with the understanding that he has agreed 

to the transfer. Accordingly, it is 

 ORDERED that this matter is transferred to Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch 

pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1A and with the approval of the Chief Judge. 

Dated: April 18, 2012. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

WILEY Y. DANIEL, 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-02550-RPM Document 27 Filed 04/18/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WILLIAMS BROTHERS, Inc., Defendant and Appellee. *

No. 13984.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 16, 1932.

J. O. Henriques and Harry M. Mayo, Jr., both of New Orleans, for appellant.

Edward Rightor and Eugie V. Parham, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

*

Rehearing denied June 27, 1932.

JANVIER, J.

For the reasons given in the opinion rendered by us to-day in the matter entitled Southern Bell Telephone *&*Telegraph Company v. Williams Brothers, Inc., 141 So. 835, it. is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be, and it is, affirmed, at the cost of appellant.

Judgment affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6231

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GERALD DAMONE HOPPER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Thomas A. Wiseman, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-95-119-1, CA-96-217-3)

Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 13, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Damone Hopper, Appellant Pro Se. Robert James Conrad, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gerald Damone Hopper seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the

reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Hopper, Nos.

CR-95-119-1; CA-96-217-3 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 8, 1999). In addition, we

note that Hopper’s claims that his counsel provided him with ineffective assistance on appeal are meritless. See McKaskle v.

Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183 (1984); see also United States v.

Gillis, 773 F.2d 549, 559 (4th Cir. 1985). We therefore deny

Hopper’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, to appoint

counsel, to supplement the record, and to publish this opinion. We

also deny Hopper’s motion for 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
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10816 Conference Calendar

RICHARD RIVERA, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GURNEY UNIT MEDICAL FACILITY; UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH HOSPITAL, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:96-CV-1364-G

- - - - - - - - - - June 17, 1997 Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
PER CURIAM: * Richard Rivera, Sr., Texas prisoner # 654514, appeals the district court’s denial as frivolous of his civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1983, and 1988, seeking injunctive and declaratory against the Gurney Medical Unit and the University of Texas Medical Branch Hospital.No. 96-10816 - 2 - Rivera has identified no error in the dismissal of his civil rights complaint. Because Rivera has failed to raise an issue of arguable merit, his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Rivera that future frivolous civil suits and appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. Rivera is cautioned further to review any pending suits and appeals to ensure that they raise issues of arguable merit and do not raise arguments that are frivolous. Because Rivera’s case does not present "exceptional circumstances" warranting it, his motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock County, Tex. , 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ROBERT GARY,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (J.D. ECKMAN, INC.),

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 3 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of July, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01736-MSK-MJW

C. RANDEL LEWIS, solely in his capacity as Receiver,

Plaintiff,

v.

JULIE GIGLIO, IRA; and

JULIE GIGLIO, its beneficiary,

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended

Complaint [Docket No. 3] Pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(2) (Motion) (#7), Having reviewed

the Motion, the Plaintiff’s Response, which confesses the Motion and the Defendants’ Reply,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. This matter is hereby dismissed,

without prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorneys fees.

DATED this 21st day of July, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01736-MSK-MJW Document 11 Filed 07/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.1

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors

HSBC Finance Corporation

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-138404 and No. 333-138404-01) on Form S-3 of HSBC Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I of our attestation report dated March 16, 2009 with respect to HSBC Finance Corporation’s (the Company) assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB applicable to the servicing of asset backed securitization transactions secured by private label credit card receivables, except for the criteria set forth in Sections 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(4)(i), 1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(viii), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), 1122(d)(4)(xiv), and1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the Company’s activities, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008. Our attestation report appears in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of HSBC Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I.  

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

March 25, 2009
1

This minute order is issued pursuant to the express authority of the Honorable Robert E. 

Blackburn, United States District Judge for the District of Colorado.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00387-REB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PABLO HERNANDEZ-DIAZ,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER1

On November 14, 2011, the parties appeared in chambers to obtain a new date

for the change of plea hearing in this matter. After conferring with counsel and with their

consent,

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That on November 30, 2011, commencing at 10:00 a.m., the court shall

conduct a change of plea hearing in this matter;

2. That, to the extent necessary, the United States Marshal for the District of

Colorado shall assist the court in securing the defendant’s appearance for this hearing;

and

3. That the telephonic setting conference set for November 8, 2011, is

VACATED. 

Dated: November 4, 2011

Case 1:11-cr-00387-REB Document 21 Filed 11/04/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Nursing Research Initial Review Group, October 16, 2008, 8 a.m. to October 17, 2008, 5 p.m. Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD, 20814 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 9, 2008, FR Doc. E8-20642.                

Date change to October 16, 2008 only and time change to 8 a.m.-6 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: October 1, 2008.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

 [FR Doc. E8-23782 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
NUMBER 13-14-00094-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.J.M., T.J.M. III, AND A.T.M., MINOR CHILDREN

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 169th District Court 

of Bell County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Amanda Evette Massenburg, appealed a judgment entered by the 169th 

District Court of Bell County, Texas.1 On March 13, 2014, the Clerk of this Court notified 

appellant, in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c), that we would 

dismiss this appeal unless the $195.00 filing fee was paid. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). 

 

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin pursuant to a 

docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 

(West 2005). 
2

Appellant has not responded to the notice from the Clerk or paid the $195.00 filing fee. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 12.1(b).

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s failure to pay 

the filing fee, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. 42.3(b),(c). 

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

10th day of April, 2014.